A source for what? A source who says "Rouen is not the capital of
Northern
France"? How can they be such source since there is nothing like a
capital of
'Northern France'? You claim Rouen was "the capital of Northern France":
what
is your source for that? An Encyclopedia is not a source.

You are incorrect. I did not claim that "Rouen is the capital of Northern
France"
I quoted a source that said "Rouen, the capital of northern France"

On what basis, that source makes the statement is not material to THIS
discussion,

Then what is?

Sitat:

which is about your rude behaviour toward me.

I prefer not to go in discussion with people who uses argument like: "you
have been rude with me so I can tell everything I want".
I have not been rude.

Sitat:

I already pointed out
that underlying source FOR that article on Henry V. If you have a gripe
about
his statement, you can discuss it with him.

Your pedantic fixation on this one phrase does not speak highly of your
interest in solving the underlying issue which is whether Henry V ever
took a title
with direct regard to Normandy.

That is an issue only for you. You have not been able to produce any
document where Henry V used such title. Your logic seems to be: "Henry V
conquiered Normandy, so certainly he must have taken a new title". Why? At
the time, Henry V claimed to be the king of France: he did not need an other
title.

Sitat:

So far I have produced several contemporary
documents on the issue

You have produce no quotation of a contemporary document where Henry V would
be given any particular title relating to Normandy.

Sitat:

and you have produced exactly zero.

The ball is in your court.

You claim Henry V took a new title when he occupated Normandy. What is your
source for that? The ball is and has always been in your court.

A source for what? A source who says "Rouen is not the capital of Northern
France"? How can they be such source since there is nothing like a capital of
'Northern France'? You claim Rouen was "the capital of Northern France": what
is your source for that? An Encyclopedia is not a source.

You are incorrect. I did not claim that "Rouen is the capital of Northern
France"
I quoted a source that said "Rouen, the capital of northern France"

On what basis, that source makes the statement is not material to THIS
discussion, which is about your rude behaviour toward me. I already pointed out
that underlying source FOR that article on Henry V. If you have a gripe about
his statement, you can discuss it with him.

Your pedantic fixation on this one phrase does not speak highly of your
interest in solving the underlying issue which is whether Henry V ever took a title
with direct regard to Normandy. So far I have produced several contemporary
documents on the issue and you have produced exactly zero.

Perhaps as he alluded to in one email, Henry calls himself "King of
France" I don't know.

If Mr Johnson doesn't know Henry V calls himself "King of France" until the
treaty of Troyes, he need some basic training in English history, not to
speak of English literature since he seems to have never open Shakespeare.

And you need training in basic manners.
I never said I did not know that he calls himself King of France.
We are speaking specifically about what he claims his legal basis is for
granting land in Normandy to his followers. The only way to determine that is by
examining the documents of those grants.
You my friend seem to be the one of the rudest contributors to this list.
Your alledged expertise in history and genealogy does not allow you to be
nasty to fellow contributors as you seem to think it does.

As far as I can say, Henry VI only used the titles "king of France and
England and Lord of Ireland" from 1415 until the treaty of Troyes (1420),
and then "King of England, Heir of the kingdom of France and Lord of
Ireland" or "King of England, Heir and Regent of the Kingdom of France and
Lord of Ireland", without any additional title.

So was Henry VI really King while his father was yet living? Henry VI was
born in 1421 according to "Heraldry of the Royal Families of Europe" by Jiri
Louda and Michael Maclagan. I assume you mean Henry V.
And you again make statements like the above evidently about Henry V (not
VI) without ANY documentation to support them. Forgive me if that leaves me
wanting.
Will

You make statements like "no King of England ever took the title of Duke of
Normandy after 1259 and that is a Fact"

I produce a document showing that Henry in 1262 did in fact called himself
Dux Norm and you completely ignore it. And that my friend is a fact.

I ask for what is your basis for this statement that no King of England ever
took that title. Knowing of course that to make such a statement you must
have actually preused every single document signed by every single monarch of
England in order to draw your conclusion. And yet what we find is you can quote
exactly one single document. Interesting that on the basis of one document
you can make such a statement. I suppose this means you're an expert in
history.

I point to your statement that "because I am French I know a bit about French
history". Quite a bit of puffery there. I suppose because I am an American
I know everything about American history and can make statements like "No US
President ever called himself the Queen of Bavaria. And that is a fact."

Your facts lack substance. When I point them out you proceed to a series of
insults, claiming I know nothing of Shakespeare, or English literature, or
French history, or what a valid source is. This is argument ad hominem and it
doesn't stand. If you have a valid argument than I'm sure we'd all love to hear
it. So far, your argument is show me the proof of your statements. And yet,
I have never said "and that is a fact" as YOU have. So I'm sure it's quite
plain to listeners, that your statements should each be taken with a grain of
salt, as any particular one of them might stand on ..... nothing, just your own
unfounded opinion.

There is no point to continuing this discussion unless you are going to start
quoting sources to support your position, as I have. It is true that I have
not yet found a source that specifically calls Henry V the Duke of Normandy,
however argument from silence is not convincing. The truth is I have not found
any source where Henry V is actually granting land IN Normandy to anybody,
and it is precisely those documents that could reliably be used to settle this
debate.

In addition, Normandy did not revert to France after Henry V died. It was
under English domination for quite a time after. And on the basis of what?
That the overlord (Governor) of Normandy was styled Regent of France? I do not
believe we have conclusively proven that as of yet. The number of citations so
far posted is too low to come to that conclusion.

In order to have a capital, would not "Northern France" have to be a
political entity? Normandy was, thus Rouen could be the capital of
Normandy. France was, but its capital is Paris. Does Britannica have an
entry for this entity of Northern France? I think our author of the
Britannica article has slipped up.

And no, I don't think it is important enough to write to him about it.
(Nor to waste more time arguing about it here). His editor should have
caught it.

"In order to have a capital, would not "Northern France" have to be a political entity? Normandy was, thus Rouen could be the capital of Normandy. France was, but its capital is Paris. Does Britannica have an entry for this entity of Northern France? I think our author of the Britannica article has slipped up.

And no, I don't think it is important enough to write to him about it. (Nor to waste more time arguing about it here). His editor should have caught it."

Yes I agree with you.
First I would like to point out the following:
the quote does not say "Rouen, capital of Northern France..."
but rather "Rouen, capital of northern France..."

Can anyone spot the difference?
The word "northern" is not capitalized. This implies that the usage of the phrase "northern France" is not intended to denote a proper name.

That is why one suggestion I had already posted was that the author was using the phrase figuratively and not literally.

Like calling New Orleans in 1820 the "capital of the West US". Not that it really was a political capital, but rather that it was a cultural capital.

And my defense of the professor is that he is an expert in such things, acknowledge not just by the University of Bristol, but by the editors of the EB. I would say his words would stand in higher regard than the average internet citation for that fact alone. In addition, he is the author of a number of books on this period, as you can readily determine by doing a google search on his name and counting how many times he is cited with bibliographic references.

Leo has pointed out another solution, that this may be a typographical error and thus might be intended to read "A capital of northern France" or "A capital IN northern France". This is also a possible solution.

Since I had found "Dux Norm" on the A2A site, I had assumed that was the correct form for "Duke of Normandy". However, I can only find the one cited document using that phrase search. That was for 4 Nov 1262.

What other phrases can I search for other than the obvious "Duke of Normandy"

The title was usually "Normannorum dux" (previously "comes", "marchio"
or "princeps"), for "duke (count, marquis or ruler) of the Normans", and
later became "dux Normanni[a]e" (duke of Normandy).

But as Pierre has said, thia title was not likely to be used by a prince
calling himself "king of France", or "heir and regent" of the kingdom
for that matter. The document from 1334 is presumably just the
confirmation of an earlier one, repeating its text.

Since I had found "Dux Norm" on the A2A site, I had assumed that was the correct form for "Duke of Normandy". However, I can only find the one cited document using that phrase search. That was for 4 Nov 1262.

What other phrases can I search for other than the obvious "Duke of Normandy"
Thanks
Will Johnson

Dear Will et als,
A major glitch in this document. Edward III was
King of England in 1334, not Henry, though Henry VI was King of England and had
been crowned King of France as well ( The only One to actually be so crowned,
though I think every King from Edward III to King George II who ruled over
England also declared themselves to be King of France regardless of the
political realities of their time. Edward III could almost have made a case for his
own overlordship of France between the capture of King Jean II of France at
the Battle of Poitiers and 1364, when that King died at Edward III`s court,
a closely guarded and well treated ` guest ` of Edward.
sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Since I had found "Dux Norm" on the A2A site, I had assumed that was the
correct form for "Duke of Normandy". However, I can only find the one cited

document using that phrase search. That was for 4 Nov 1262.

Sitat:

What other phrases can I search for other than the obvious "Duke of
Normandy" :)

The title was usually "Normannorum dux" (previously "comes", "marchio"
or "princeps"), for "duke (count, marquis or ruler) of the Normans", and
later became "dux Normanni[a]e" (duke of Normandy).

But as Pierre has said, thia title was not likely to be used by a prince
calling himself "king of France", or "heir and regent" of the kingdom
for that matter. The document from 1334 is presumably just the
confirmation of an earlier one, repeating its text.

Yes. Of course, the change of title didn't concern defunct sovereigns :)

Since I had found "Dux Norm" on the A2A site, I had assumed that was the

correct form for "Duke of Normandy". However, I can only find the one cited
document using that phrase search. That was for 4 Nov 1262.

What other phrases can I search for other than the obvious "Duke of

Normandy" :)

The title was usually "Normannorum dux" (previously "comes", "marchio"
or "princeps"), for "duke (count, marquis or ruler) of the Normans", and
later became "dux Normanni[a]e" (duke of Normandy).

But as Pierre has said, thia title was not likely to be used by a prince
calling himself "king of France", or "heir and regent" of the kingdom
for that matter. The document from 1334 is presumably just the
confirmation of an earlier one, repeating its text.

Yes. Of course, the change of title didn't concern defunct sovereigns

Just out of interest, can anyone recall an instance where a medieval
monarch used another title after accession to the throne for which
homage would have been owed to himself/herself?

FILE - Copy of a grant - ref. OG/UU/1 - date: nd[12th-13th century]
[from Scope and Content] That the land of the Canons of Christchurch should be free of all things from Henry, King of England, Duke of Normandy and Acquitaine

I'm not really sure the last one is for Henry III, but it's possible.

The question being, I would have expected a lot more than just six documents naming Henry III as Duke of Normandy. Wouldn't I ?

So far using all these variant spellings I have only found three Latin documents naming Henry III Duke of Normandy. I was really expecting to find a lot more.
Each of the three use a different form
Dux Norm'
Dux Norman'
dux Normannorum

I also tried variations on comes, princeps, marchio and got nothing on those.

So far using all these variant spellings I have only found three Latin documents naming Henry III Duke of Normandy. I was really expecting to find a lot more.
Each of the three use a different form
Dux Norm'
Dux Norman'
dux Normannorum

I also tried variations on comes, princeps, marchio and got nothing on those.

There are not likely to be documents in English archives, showing up on
A2A, containing these - from the time of William the Conqueror onwards,
"dux" was almost invariably the title used by the rulers of Normandy
descended from him, and even that would not appear in a great many
English contexts.

8 Mar 1422/3 Calendar of Close Rolls 1 Henry VI p. 29
To the escheator in Cambridgeshire. Order to give William son and
heir of William Heroun seisin of the manor of Crauden in Crauden, a
messuage, 40 acres of land and 8 acres of meadow in Malketon, a messuage
and 30 acres of land in Aruyngton parcel of the said manor, and a
messuage and 40 acres of land in Wyndey ; as it is found by inquisition,
taken before John Wynter escheator of King Henry IV, that Margaret
sometime wife of Roger Heroun knight at her death held for life the said
manor of that king as of the honour of Peverell, extending into
Malketon, Aruyngton and Wendeye, and the messuages and lands aforesaid,
with reversion to the said William the son, being then within age ; and
by another inquisition, taken before John Bury the late king’s
escheator, it is found that [s]he held the same for life, by name of the
manor of Crauden with appurtenances only, by grant of Roger Nicholson to
her, by name of Margaret late the wife of Roger Heroun knight, with
remainder to William Heroun son and heir of the said Roger and to his
heirs, that William son of Roger died long before her death, having
issue William Heroun knight now living, that the reversion belongs to
William the son, and that the premises are held of others than the king
; and William the son proved his age before John Rodes late mayor of
Newcastle-upon-Tyne and the late king’s escheator therein, and the king
has taken his fealty, and for 6s. 8d. paid in the hanaper has respited
his homage until Whitsuntide next.

Although it remains unsaid, I reckon we can assume that William, son and
heir of Roger Heron, was the son of an unknown wife previous to Margaret
Hastings.

I will send you a rundown of the generations by another (lengthy) post.

Nichols' chart says that Margaret's second husband was "John Brocket,"
perhaps an understandable mistake for "John Blaket." It also shows
that Margaret's only child and heir was Isabel Heron, an ancestor
somehow of the Hesilrige family of Leicestershire.

I know that Nichols tends to be unreliable in the earlier generations
in some of his charts, so this is just mentioned as a clue ...

Nichols' chart says that Margaret's second husband was "John Brocket,"
perhaps an understandable mistake for "John Blaket." It also shows
that Margaret's only child and heir was Isabel Heron, an ancestor
somehow of the Hesilrige family of Leicestershire.<snip

The Parliamentary biographies for the reigns of H!V and HV give a deal of
detail about Sir John Blaket of Icomb and his first wife Margaret Hastings, widow
of Sir Roger Heron (identified as the eldest son of William, Lord Heron).
Apparently Margaret (died 1407) had a grandson William Heron. She had dower in
the manor of Croydon, and after her death Sir John Blaket had a royal grant
enabling him to retain that manor during the minority of her grandson.

I haven't yet found him amongst my ancestors, Ergo, I must be 'Personne'
....maybe the modern German expression is true .. 'Mennen begimmt bei Graf' -
Mankind begins with the Count ?
Peter (de Loriol), back form an exhilirating five weeks in Spain and France!

Have unearthed some photocopies of pages that I once
made of Bartrum's Welsh Genealogies 300-1400 (alas, I
never copied the entire book when I had access) and
have a question concerning his listings concerning
wives. If anyone has a copy and can look at it, look
at "Iestyn 1", page 542, for example. Bartrum lists
two wives (or perhaps, to be more correct, partners)
for Gwrgan ap Ithel whom he letters "a" and "b".
Likewise, he lists three partners for Iestyn ap Gwrgan
whom he letters "a", "b", and "c". Yet nowhere does
he seem to indicate which of these women is the mother
of any of the children indicated for the respective
men. Is this simply because it is not known who was
the mother of whom, or am I somehow reading the charts
incorrectly? I have noticed similar treatments on
other pages. Also, on the same aforementioned Iestyn
1 page, he lists a Sara ferch Morgan ap Meurig ap
Gwrgan as the wife of Payn I Tuberville, but then adds
the parenthetical comment "(fictitious?)". Is he
questioning the existence of Sara or the marriage or
both?

Thanks in advance for your help.

Ronald Di Iorio

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

I haven't yet found him amongst my ancestors, Ergo,
I must be 'Personne'
...maybe the modern German expression is true ..
'Mennen begimmt bei Graf' -
Mankind begins with the Count ?
Peter (de Loriol), back form an exhilirating five
weeks in Spain and France!

On the contrary: he is one of the main ancestors of
most of today's Continental European nobility, and of
all extant royal houses, as far as I know. The reason
is the fact that his gdaughter Valensa Doria married
Stefano Visconti, and became ancestress of Viscontis,
Sforzas, Valois...

His blood (metaphorically...) spreads from his son
Bernabò Doria, who married Eliana Fieschi, the
niece
and gniece of two popes, and whose descent enters
the
Visconti family - and from then on goes
everywhere.

I have to my knowledge no Doria, Oria or Visconti in
my background. What
makes you think this blood is so widespread? From
what you posted so far, it
doesn't seem to be.

"On the contrary: he is one of the main ancestors of
most of today's Continental European nobility, and of
all extant royal houses, as far as I know. The reason
is the fact that his gdaughter Valensa Doria married
Stefano Visconti, and became ancestress of Viscontis,
Sforzas, Valois...

fa"

Ok but how is it that the Visconti are related to "most of today's Continental European nobility" ? I have a Valentine Visconti as grandmother to Louis XII France, perhaps that is the main route?

Dear Newsgroup,
Here is One of the better known lines connecting to
Branca d`Oria
Bernabo Doria
Valensa / Valentina Doria married Stefano Visconti
Bernabo Visconti married Beatrice `Regina` Della
Scala
Maddelena Visconti married Friedrich, Duke of
Bayern- Landshut
Elisabeth of Bayern-Landshut married Friedrich,
Kurfurst ( Electoral Prince) of Brandenburg
Johann `the Alchemist`, Margraf of Brandenburg
married Barbara of Sachsen- Wittenburg, daughter of Rudolf III, Kurfurst of
Sachsen by his 2nd wife Barbara of Legnica, daughter of Prince Ruprecht I of
Legnica, one of the Piast Principalities of Poland.
Dorothea of Brandenburg married 1) Christopher III,
King of Denmark,and 2) his cousin and successor Christian I of Oldenburg
Magarethe of Denmark ( daughter by 2nd husband)
married James III Stewart, King of Scots
James IV, Stewart, King of Scots (A Wife and several
mistresses)
... And so forth
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine , USA

I haven't yet found him amongst my ancestors, Ergo, I must be 'Personne'
..maybe the modern German expression is true .. 'Mennen begimmt bei
Graf' -
Mankind begins with the Count ?
Peter (de Loriol), back form an exhilirating five weeks in Spain and
France!

His blood (metaphorically...) spreads from his son
Bernabò Doria, who married Eliana Fieschi, the
niece
and gniece of two popes, and whose descent enters
the
Visconti family - and from then on goes
everywhere.

I have to my knowledge no Doria, Oria or Visconti in
my background. What
makes you think this blood is so widespread? From
what you posted so far, it
doesn't seem to be.

"On the contrary: he is one of the main ancestors of
most of today's Continental European nobility, and
of
all extant royal houses, as far as I know. The
reason
is the fact that his gdaughter Valensa Doria married
Stefano Visconti, and became ancestress of
Viscontis,
Sforzas, Valois...

fa"

Ok but how is it that the Visconti are related to
"most of today's Continental European nobility" ?
I have a Valentine Visconti as grandmother to Louis
XII France, perhaps that is the main route?

"On the contrary: he is one of the main ancestors of
most of today's Continental European nobility, and
of
all extant royal houses, as far as I know. The
reason
is the fact that his gdaughter Valensa Doria married
Stefano Visconti, and became ancestress of
Viscontis,
Sforzas, Valois...

fa"
"

OK and the route to James Stewart IV that was posted.
But you said "most of" continental royalty.
And Leo I still don't think this person is in my ancestry
At least so far, none of the routes posted has connected me to the doria family.
Will

Another of those ancestors-for-all is of course our
dear Abunazar lord of the Maya...

fa

--- Leo van de Pas <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
escreveu:

Sitat:

Should they be your ancestors? I really think that
"most"does not apply, I
think it is "all".

Thanks to Chico bringing up Branca Doria, I am at
the moment adding more to
his descendants and, when I am a little further, I
intend to make a file and
people can say if they want to see it----as sadly I
cannot attach it to a
message to Gen-Med.
Leo van de Pas

--- WJhonson@aol.com escreveu:
"On the contrary: he is one of the main
ancestors of
most of today's Continental European nobility,
and
of
all extant royal houses, as far as I know. The
reason
is the fact that his gdaughter Valensa Doria
married
Stefano Visconti, and became ancestress of
Viscontis,
Sforzas, Valois...

fa"
"

OK and the route to James Stewart IV that was
posted.
But you said "most of" continental royalty.
And Leo I still don't think this person is in my
ancestry
At least so far, none of the routes posted has
connected me to the doria
family.
Will

I am wondering, though, since Gian Galeazzo Visconti married his 1st
cousin, Caterina Visconti, daughter of Bernabo, what the in-breeding
did to the descendants. Does murdering one's father-in-law (ignoring
the fact he was also his uncle) run in the blood - or genes?

Was there a dispensation for the marriage of Gian Galeazzo and
Caterina?

Just out of interest, can anyone recall an instance where a medieval
monarch used another title after accession to the throne for which
homage would have been owed to himself/herself?

As far as I can recall, the kingd of France did that only when the
fiefs in question were their be right of their wife and so were not
exactly merged in the Crown. For exemple:
- Louis VII used the title "Duke of Aquitaine" even after his father's
death, when he was the only king, and until his separation from his
wife.
- IIRC, Philip IV used the titles of "Count of Champagne and of Brie"
until his wife's death in the acts relating to Champagne, but I must
check that.

Of course, the king used titles like "dauphin of Viennois" or "Count
of Provence" in their acts relating to those possessions, but those
were not fiefs for which they could have claimed homage.

Sir Brian de Thornhill (1298-1369) married Joan Fitzwilliam (ca. 1320-Feb.
22, 1382/3).
They were married before 1347.

Nottinghamshire Archives: Savile of Rufford: Deeds and Estate Papers

Catalogue Ref. 157 DD/SR

FILE [no title] - ref. DD/SR/26/61 - date: 21 Edw III [1347-8]
[from Scope and Content] Quitclaim by Richard son of Thomas de
Popilwell' in favour of Sir Brian de Thornehill' knight and Lady Joan his wife of his
claim to lands and tenements in the fee of Gomersal' (Gomersall, Yk) which he
had previously granted to Brian and Joan, and also to an annual rent of 12d
from lands there.

Joan was the daughter of Isabel D'Eincourt(?) and Sir William Fitzwilliam.

Baildon & the Baildons by William Paley Baildon, Chapter Eleven - The
Fitzwilliams of Emley and Sprotborough, page 355:

1348 July 25 - Will of Isabel, widow of Sir William Fitzwilliam of Emley. To
be buried in the chapel of St. Thomas the Martyr at Sprotborough. Mentions her
sons: Sir John and Thomas, and her daughters Margaret, Joan, Isabel and
Agnes. Sir William Deyncourt and Sir John Deyncourt, her Godson [filiolus].
Executors her son Sir John FitzWilliam, Sir William Trussebut and Sir Brian de
Thornhill. [Testamenta Ebor. Vol. 1, No. 50]

There was a fine levied, 18 Edward II, between William, son of William, Quer.
and Edmund, parson of the church of Plumtre, deforc. of the manor of Plumtre,
with the Appurtenances, and the advowson of the church of the same manor,
whereby it was settled on the said William Fitz-William, and the heirs of his
body; Remainder to John son of the said William and the heirs male of his;
Remainder to Thomas, brother of John in like fort; Remainder to Joan, sister of
Thomas, and the heirs male of her body; Remainder to Agnes, and to Isabel, her
sisters respectively in the same manner; remainder to the right heirs of the said
William.

Reference: WWM/D/26,27
Licence

Creation dates: 27 Dec 1324

Extent and Form: Two copies

Scope and Content
To William Fitzwilliam and Isabel, his wife, to levy a fine to Edmund
Deyncourt.

In the manor of Emeleye, held of the King, as of his manor of Wakefield; and
his manor of Darthington, held of the King as of his Honour of Pontefract, as
the King is informed by Inquisition made by Simon de Grymmesby, escheator for
the counties of York, Westmoreland, Northumberland and Cumberland.

To be to the use of William and Isabella. On default of a male heir, then to
the use of John Fitzwilliam, and thereafter to specified uses.

The consideration is to be 12 marks.

At Nottingham, 27 December, 1324

Seal: Great Seal of King Edward II

Obverse: King enthroned in majesty: open crown of three points fleury,
sceptre ensigned with dove and branch. Throne of elaborate tabernacle work, with
back, rising sides, and front pieces adorned with arcading. Foot board, or
corbel, ornamented with foliage and rings. Under foot, two small lions couchant
guardant; and, at each side of the throne, lion leaping up towards the king.

....ANGLIE DOMINUS H...NIE DUX AQUITANIE

Reverse: Equestrian, King on horse to right, in haubert of chain mail with
crown, surcoat, spur, broad sword elevated and shield or arms of England.
Bardings of neck and flank of horse charged with same arms reversed.

C143/175/13:
William son of William to settle the manors of Emley and Darrington on
himself, Isabel his wife, and the heirs of their bodies with successive remainders
to John, son of William, Thomas, his brother, and the heirs male of their
bodies, remainder to the heirs of William, son of William, retaining the manors of
Dalton and Sprotbrough, co. York and Plumtree and Hucknall, co. Nottingham.
Dated 17 Edward II [1324].

Reference: WWM/D/34
Confirmation

Creation dates: 20 Nov 1345

Scope and Content
John Fitzwilliam of Emlay, knight, to William Frankys de Cateby and John de
Gray.

Confirming a grant made by his mother, Isabella de Emlay, of 20 acres of land
and a third part of one toft, with appurtenances, in Sprotburgh and Cateby.

Witnesses: John de Raddeklyf, parson of the Church of Sprotburgh, Hugh de
Sandall, Thomas de Huntyngfeld, William de Estfeld.

At Sprotburgh, Sunday after the octave of St Martin in winter (11 November)
1345.

Seal: armorial, shield, 6 lozenges.

Round, 3 cms. red, only centre part remaining, on tag.

Reference: WWM/D/32
Release

Creation dates: 9 Mar 1344
Language: French

Scope and Content
Thomas Flemyngs of Clifton to John Fitzwilliam, of all burdens, dues and
services due in his 3 weekly court for the manor of Wath.

For a red rose at the Nativity of St John the Baptist (24 June).

Witnesses: Bryan de Thornhill, William de Fyncheden, Elis de Bryton, John de
Dranfeld, John de Wodehall de Wath.

At Emley, Sunday before St Gregory (12 March), 1343/4.

The above show that Isabel D'Eincourt married Sir William FitzWilliam between
1317 and before 17 December 1324. As John Fitzwilliam came into the lands in
Darthyngton, Emley and Sprotborough, it is apparent that there was no male
issue of the second marriage. It is significant that the executors of the will
of Isabel D'Eincourt were her stepson John Fitzwilliam, Brian de Thornhill who
married her daughter Joan, and William Trussebut.

As to the birth date of Joan Fitzwilliam we know that she was married before
1347 to Sir Brian de Thornhill. From the ages of her children Margaret, who
married Sir Gerard de Ufflete [see below] and Simon de Thornhill who we have
recorded in documents as early as 1369 [see original post] they were probably
born 1340-1350. The marriage settlement for Margaret gives us a date of
1357-1358 but many of these settlements occurred when the children were adolescents
which is no indication of the age of the parents.

Reference: DD/SR/209/124
Creation dates: 1357 - 1358

Scope and Content
Chirograph: Marriage settlement - Henry de Nuhill clerk to Brian of Thornhill
on marriage of Gerald son of Gerard de Ufflet and Margaret daughter of Brian,
lands etc in Swanland and Ufflet.

Joan died in 1382/3 and had her first children 1340-1350 it would appear that
she was born no earlier than 1320. As for the following document:

Baildon & the Baildons by William Paley Baildon, Chapter Eleven - The
Fitzwilliams of Emley and Sprotborough, page 354:

1327 Sir William FitzWilliam of Hemeley, John his son and Brian de Thornhill,
fled for the death of Sir Richard Plaiz, killed at Helaw. [Exchequer K.R.
Misc., bundle 904 No. 1]

Joan Fitzwilliam may have been married to Sir Brian de Thornhill as a child
[at least age 7].
It is obvious from the fine cited in Thoroton that all the Fitzwilliam
children were born before 1324-1325 when the fine above was recorded.

If Isabel D'Eincourt were the mother of Joan Fitzwilliam then there would be
a line to Henry I through her mother Isabel de Mohun.

"Frank Johansen" <johansf@chello.no.spam> wrote in message
news:I7l%c.867$L43.627@amstwist00...
Lorenzo Da Pra Galanti wrote:
The Savoy family started claiming the titular throne of Armenia with
Louis, Duke of Savoy (d 1465), husband of Anna di Lusignano (together
with the titles of king of Cyprus ad Jerusalem). This claim has not
been formally abandoned and all coins of the Savoy sovereigns report a
mention of it (in the short form of "rex sard. cypr. et hier.") until
the proclamation of the kingdom of Italy in 1861. After that date, the
only title used was "re d'Italia", but I do not think the claim was
formally abandoned.

Before someone asks how on earth a claim to the throne of Armenia could
pass to the Dukes of Savoy, I'll try to explain (but it is most likely
that I will make an error or two...):

A good place to start is Stephane, Lord of the Mountains, d. 1165. See
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00139819&tree=LEO>.
He was succeeded first by his eldest son Rupert III (1145-1187).
Initially, his two daughters Alix and Philippa inherited the realm, but
their uncle, Leo I set them aside, and took the title "King of Armenia"
upon his coronation in 1186. He died in 1219. His eldest daughter was a
that time Queen-Consort of Jerusalem, and his second daughter, Zabel
(1212/3-1252), succeeded in Armenia. Her second husband was the Armenia
nobleman Hethum of Brabaron, who reigned (joinly with his wife)
1226-1269. They were succeeded by their son Leo II (1236-1269-1289). His
son Thoros reigned 1293-1294, and his son Leo III reigned 1301-1307. (I
am not sure who reigned in between.) Leo III died childless in 1307.

It eventually ended up with the Kings of Cyprus (together with many of
the other crusader titles).

Then, a bit later, Anne, daughter of King Janus of Cyprus and Armenia,
married Duke Louis of Savoie (1413-1465). Their second son Louis, Count
of Geneve, married his cousin Charlotte of Lusignan, and then claimed
the Kingship for himself. Louis died in 1482, and Charlotte died 1487. I
believe she had bequated the island of Cyprus to the Republic of Venice.
However, her cousin, the Duke of Savoy now claimed the titled once
beloning to the Kings of Cyprus ("King of Jerusalem, Cyprus and Armenia").

Is this so-called Little Armenia, the Armenian state founded in Cilicia in
the 11th century or Great Armenia, the older Armenia kingdom in eastern
Anatolia (of which modern Armenia is the rump survivor)?

Hmmm.... The territory whose crown is claimed by the Savoy, is a part
of Turkey, isn't it?

"Their" Armenia has nothing to do with the modern Republic of Armenia,
except name.

In re: the placement of Joan FitzWilliam, wife of Sir Brian
de Thornhill, my prior post in the thread seems to gone astray -
I have copied it below. The involvement of Sir Brian de
Thornhill in 1327 with Sir William FitzWilliam and his son John
(coupled with Sir Brian being an executor of the will of Lady
Isabel (D'eyncourt) FitzWilliam in 1348) make it rather certain
that Sir Brian' wife was a daughter of Sir William FitzWilliam
and Lady Isabel, and not a granddaughter.

On the subject of a possible descent through the Mohun family
from Henry I of England, there is a problem concerning the
traditional position (see CP IV:120, sub _Deincourt_) that
Isabel de Mohun, wife of Sir Edmund Deincourt, was a daughter of
Sir Reynold de Mohun by his 2nd wife Isabel de Ferrers. Chris
Phillips noted a while back (medievalgenealogy.org.uk) that the
Ferrers ancestry for Isabel de Mohun is erroneous:

'The issue of Isabel de Ferrers had certainly failed by April
1327, when an inquisition was taken after the death of John
Meriet, who had married her granddaughter. But at this time at
least two of Edmund's children were alive or had surviving issue
(his son John and his daughter Margaret - see Willoughby, volume
12, part 2, page 658). Clearly, either his wife Isabel was not
the daughter of Isabel de Ferrers, or he had another wife who
was the mother of these children. '

It would seem then that Isabel de Mohun was likely a daughter
of Hawise, daughter of Geoffrey fitz Piers, Earl of Essex (d.
1213) by his 2nd wife Aveline de Clare. This fouls up the Henry
I descent: however, via the Tosny family there is a descent from
Lambert of Lens and Adelaide, sister of the Conqueror, as well as
from Richard III, Duke of Normandy via the vicomtes of the
Bessin.

Cheers,

John

_____________________________________

Tuesday, 7 September, 2004

Dear MichaelAnne,

Good to hear from you; and, thanks in advance for your plans
re: posting on Dronsfeld, Wentworth & c. as relates to the
Thornhills of Thornhill.

As to the issue of the parentage of Joan (FitzWilliam) de
Thornhill, I had not dealt with the placement and chronology as
per the source (Wallop) cited by Brice Clagett; however, it did
seem more likely that Sir Brian de Thornhill's wife Joan would
have been a daughter of Sir William FitzWilliam, and not a
granddaughter. I cited in my post the following from the PRO:

record dated 1327:
' Gaol delivery at York Castle, Wm son of William of Emley,
kt, John his son and Brian of Thornhill, accused of killing
Richard Playce at Dringhouses, put themselves on the county*
are found not guilty ' - PRO, Nottinghamshire
Archives: Savile of Rufford: Deeds and Estate Papers
[DD/SR/216 - DD/SR/237], DD/SR/231/52

* [should read 'on the country']

For Sir Brian to have been 'mixed up' with his father-in-law
and brother-in-law in some possibly shady business ca. 1327 would
seem to make more sense than with his father-in-law and
grandfather-in-law. John FitzWilliam (murdered in 1385?), son
of John, was born in 1327 according to CP, so again it would seem
more likely Sir Brian de Thornhill was married to his aunt, not
his sister.

Sir Brian de Thornhill (1298-1369) married Joan Fitzwilliam (ca. 1320-Feb.
22, 1382/3).
They were married before 1347.

Nottinghamshire Archives: Savile of Rufford: Deeds and Estate Papers

Catalogue Ref. 157 DD/SR

FILE [no title] - ref. DD/SR/26/61 - date: 21 Edw III [1347-8]
[from Scope and Content] Quitclaim by Richard son of Thomas de
Popilwell' in favour of Sir Brian de Thornehill' knight and Lady Joan his wife of his
claim to lands and tenements in the fee of Gomersal' (Gomersall, Yk) which he
had previously granted to Brian and Joan, and also to an annual rent of 12d
from lands there.

Joan was the daughter of Isabel D'Eincourt(?) and Sir William Fitzwilliam.

Baildon & the Baildons by William Paley Baildon, Chapter Eleven - The
Fitzwilliams of Emley and Sprotborough, page 355:

1348 July 25 - Will of Isabel, widow of Sir William Fitzwilliam of Emley. To
be buried in the chapel of St. Thomas the Martyr at Sprotborough. Mentions her
sons: Sir John and Thomas, and her daughters Margaret, Joan, Isabel and
Agnes. Sir William Deyncourt and Sir John Deyncourt, her Godson [filiolus].
Executors her son Sir John FitzWilliam, Sir William Trussebut and Sir Brian de
Thornhill. [Testamenta Ebor. Vol. 1, No. 50]

<<<<<<< regretable snip of useful material >>>>>>>

Sitat:

The above show that Isabel D'Eincourt married Sir William FitzWilliam between
1317 and before 17 December 1324. As John Fitzwilliam came into the lands in
Darthyngton, Emley and Sprotborough, it is apparent that there was no male
issue of the second marriage. It is significant that the executors of the will
of Isabel D'Eincourt were her stepson John Fitzwilliam, Brian de Thornhill who
married her daughter Joan, and William Trussebut.

As to the birth date of Joan Fitzwilliam we know that she was married before
1347 to Sir Brian de Thornhill. From the ages of her children Margaret, who
married Sir Gerard de Ufflete [see below] and Simon de Thornhill who we have
recorded in documents as early as 1369 [see original post] they were probably
born 1340-1350. The marriage settlement for Margaret gives us a date of
1357-1358 but many of these settlements occurred when the children were adolescents
which is no indication of the age of the parents.

Reference: DD/SR/209/124
Creation dates: 1357 - 1358

Scope and Content
Chirograph: Marriage settlement - Henry de Nuhill clerk to Brian of Thornhill
on marriage of Gerald son of Gerard de Ufflet and Margaret daughter of Brian,
lands etc in Swanland and Ufflet.

Joan died in 1382/3 and had her first children 1340-1350 it would appear that
she was born no earlier than 1320. As for the following document:

Baildon & the Baildons by William Paley Baildon, Chapter Eleven - The
Fitzwilliams of Emley and Sprotborough, page 354:

1327 Sir William FitzWilliam of Hemeley, John his son and Brian de Thornhill,
fled for the death of Sir Richard Plaiz, killed at Helaw. [Exchequer K.R.
Misc., bundle 904 No. 1]

Joan Fitzwilliam may have been married to Sir Brian de Thornhill as a child
[at least age 7].
It is obvious from the fine cited in Thoroton that all the Fitzwilliam
children were born before 1324-1325 when the fine above was recorded.

If Isabel D'Eincourt were the mother of Joan Fitzwilliam then there would be
a line to Henry I through her mother Isabel de Mohun.

In re: the placement of Joan FitzWilliam, wife of Sir Brian
de Thornhill, my prior post in the thread seems to gone astray -
I have copied it below. The involvement of Sir Brian de
Thornhill in 1327 with Sir William FitzWilliam and his son John
(coupled with Sir Brian being an executor of the will of Lady
Isabel (D'eyncourt) FitzWilliam in 1348) make it rather certain
that Sir Brian' wife was a daughter of Sir William FitzWilliam
and Lady Isabel, and not a granddaughter.

On the subject of a possible descent through the Mohun family
from Henry I of England, there is a problem concerning the
traditional position (see CP IV:120, sub _Deincourt_) that
Isabel de Mohun, wife of Sir Edmund Deincourt, was a daughter of
Sir Reynold de Mohun by his 2nd wife Isabel de Ferrers. Chris
Phillips noted a while back (medievalgenealogy.org.uk) that the
Ferrers ancestry for Isabel de Mohun is erroneous:

'The issue of Isabel de Ferrers had certainly failed by April
1327, when an inquisition was taken after the death of John
Meriet, who had married her granddaughter. But at this time at
least two of Edmund's children were alive or had surviving issue
(his son John and his daughter Margaret - see Willoughby, volume
12, part 2, page 658). Clearly, either his wife Isabel was not
the daughter of Isabel de Ferrers, or he had another wife who
was the mother of these children. '

It would seem then that Isabel de Mohun was likely a daughter
of Hawise, daughter of Geoffrey fitz Piers, Earl of Essex (d.
1213) by his 2nd wife Aveline de Clare. This fouls up the Henry
I descent: however, via the Tosny family there is a descent from
Lambert of Lens and Adelaide, sister of the Conqueror, as well as
from Richard III, Duke of Normandy via the vicomtes of the
Bessin.

Cheers,

John

_____________________________________

Tuesday, 7 September, 2004

Dear MichaelAnne,

Good to hear from you; and, thanks in advance for your plans
re: posting on Dronsfeld, Wentworth & c. as relates to the
Thornhills of Thornhill.

As to the issue of the parentage of Joan (FitzWilliam) de
Thornhill, I had not dealt with the placement and chronology as
per the source (Wallop) cited by Brice Clagett; however, it did
seem more likely that Sir Brian de Thornhill's wife Joan would
have been a daughter of Sir William FitzWilliam, and not a
granddaughter. I cited in my post the following from the PRO:

record dated 1327:
' Gaol delivery at York Castle, Wm son of William of Emley,
kt, John his son and Brian of Thornhill, accused of killing
Richard Playce at Dringhouses, put themselves on the county*
are found not guilty ' - PRO, Nottinghamshire
Archives: Savile of Rufford: Deeds and Estate Papers
[DD/SR/216 - DD/SR/237], DD/SR/231/52

* [should read 'on the country']

For Sir Brian to have been 'mixed up' with his father-in-law
and brother-in-law in some possibly shady business ca. 1327 would
seem to make more sense than with his father-in-law and
grandfather-in-law. John FitzWilliam (murdered in 1385?), son
of John, was born in 1327 according to CP, so again it would seem
more likely Sir Brian de Thornhill was married to his aunt, not
his sister.

Thanks for the information on the Mohun descent. I must have missed the post
from Chris and will get it from the archives. I wanted to mention one other
thing in reference to my post of yesterday. It appears that Margaret
Fitzwilliam who married William Bingham must be a definite daughter of Isabel
D'Eincourt and Sir William Fitzwilliam. Margaret is not mentioned with the other
Fitzwilliam children in the fine of 18 Edward II and she is mentioned in her
mother's will of 1348. I erroneously stated that all the children of Sir
William Fitzwilliam were mentioned in this fine and therefore born before
1324-1325, but missed Margaret Fitzwilliam in my analysis. If anyone has more
information on Margaret Fitzwilliam and her descendants I would be greatly
interested.

Thanks for opening this discussion. The Wentworth family of Emsall is
descended from Brian de Thornhill and Joan Fitzwilliam through Jane Mirfield who
married Thomas Wentworth,esq., North Emsall, co. York. Jane Mirfield was the
daughter of Oliver Mirfield by Isabel Saville, daughter of Sir John Saville
by Alice Gascoigne.

Thomas Wentworth and Jane Mirfield are ancestral to both Thomas Wentworth of
Charles County, Maryland and the New England Wentworth line as their eldest
son Roger Wentworth is the direct ancestor of Thomas Wentworth and their son
Oliver Wentworth is the ancestor of the New England Wentworth family.

| "experts describe his bloodlines as 'more royal than any previous
| American President' "
|
| I agree. It is though to some extent a numbers game, as more
| recently-born candidates will have better odds of having more (if any)
| royal lines. Kerry descends a quite unusual number of times from
Edward
| III. Among more recent presidents or candidates, only perhaps FDR can
| approach Kerry in this regard.
|
| Among presidents, though, I think George Washington stands out (as
well
| he should) from all the rest in the realm of "glittering" ancestry -
| examined in terms of chronology. Given his reduced chances of numerous
| lines (due to his being born 2 1/2 centuries ago) his royal descents
are
| surprisingly numerous. Allow me to express my fervent hope that GW's
| arguable royal-genealogical supremacy will never be challenged by the
| reality of a Kerry presidency.
|
| Anthony Hoskins
| History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
| History and Genealogy Library
| Sonoma County Library
| 3rd and E Streets
| Santa Rosa, California 95404
|
| 707/545-0831, ext. 562

The marriage range is based on the fact that the document you cited is the
first grant of Emley to the D'Eincourt family. The next document we have and
the first one where Isabel D'Eincourt is called wife of Sir William
Fitzwilliam is dated 17 December 1324. This is why I cited these dates. Thanks for
the detailed fine. This needs further discussion. As I stated in my previous
post only Margaret Fitzwilliam can be documented as an actual daughter of
Isabel D'Eincourt. The other daughters are based upon chronology and Joan and
Isabel seem the most likely to be daughters of the second marriage.

I've checked the chronology of the Deincourt and Mohun families. If
Edmund Deincourt's wife Isabel was the daughter of Reynold de Mohun,
then she almost certainly would be by his second marriage to Isabel de
Ferrers. If doesn't seem possible for Edmund's wife to have been a
daughter of Reynold de Mohun's lst wife, Hawise Fitz Geoffrey.

However, as you note, Complete Peerage sub Derby, vol. 4, pg. 199,
states that the issue of Isabel de Ferrers, wife of Reynold de Mohun,
failed in 1324. This statement stands in conflict with the account of
the Deincourt family in the same volume, which shows that the
descendants of Isabel de Ferrers' daughter, Isabel (de Mohun)
Deincourt, continued beyond 1324. I checked Complete Peerage, vol.
14, for a possible correction to this matter but found nothing under
either Deincourt or Derby.

VCH Bedford, 2 (1908): 351 sub Luton shows that Isabel de Ferrers'
share of Luton, co. Bedford fell to her her son, William's daughter,
Mary de Mohun, wife of John de Meriet. On John de Meriet's death in
1327, the Mohun share of Luton was redistributed to the heirs of
Isabel de Ferrers' sisters, suggesting that her issue had indeed
failed by that date. VCH Bedford cites as its source, Cal. IPM, 1
Edward III, No. 51, which I haven't examined.

If correct, then it is clear that Edmund Deincourt's wife was not
Isabel de Ferrers' daughter, or if he did marry Isabel's daughter, her
issue likewise failed in or before 1327. This would mean that Edmund
Deincourt either never married Isabel de Ferrers' daughter, or that he
had his surviving children by a different wife of whom we have no
knowledge.

I've now looked at John de Meriet's inquisitions post mortem (Calendar of
Inquisitions Post Mortem, vol.7, no 46; pp.20-22). It does seem clear from
these that, as Complete Peerage states, the descendants of Isabel de Ferrers
were extinct by this time. John was holding lands of the inheritance of his
dead wife Mary, by the courtesy of England, in several counties, including
Bedfordshire. In these counties, the heirs are said to be Henry [fitz Piers]
and John de Beauchamp the elder of Somerset (these two being the
representatives of Maud de Kyme), John de Bohun of Sussex, John de Mohun* of
Dunster and Hugh de Mortimer of Chelmarsh. (*John de Mohun appears here -
confusingly - in his capacity as the grandson of John de Mohun, who married
Joan de Ferrers, another of the sisters. This grandfather John thus married
his stepmother's sister.) These are exactly the heirs we should except from
the table showing the descendants of the Ferrers sisters in Complete
Peerage, vol.4, p.199.

Sitat:

There is another avenue, however, which needs to be examined before we
conclude that Isabel de Ferrers' issue failed before 1327. Sir H.C.
Maxwell Lyte's book, History of Dunster, 1 (1909): 32-33 shows that
Isabel de Ferrers had ten hides of land at Mildenhall, co. Wilts on
her marriage to Reynold de Mohun. He also states that Isabel's son,
Sir William de Mohun, inherited the manors of Mildenhall, in
Wiltshire, and Greywell, in Hampshire "through his mother."

If these statements are correct, then tracing the history of
Mildenhall and Greywell might well be instructive. If the Deincourt
family was later in possession of these estates, then it would appear
that they were probably blood descendants of Isabel (de Ferrers) de
Mohun.

This is slightly more confusing. John de Meriet's Hampshire inquisition post
mortem says that Greywell belong to a certain Reynold de Mohun, to him and
his heirs in fee, and that he gave it to William, his younger son, and the
heirs of his body. After stating that William's two daughters were dead,
leaving no issue, the inquisition adds that through the failure of William's
issue, the manor ought to revert to one John de Mohun, as kinsman and heir
of the said Reynold. John (aged 40 years and more) is said to be the son of
John, who was the son of John, who was the son of Reynold. (Again, this
agrees with the table in Complete Peerage - judging from the article on
Mohun, John must actually have been in his late 50s.)

A similar statement is made about the manor of Mildenhall in Wiltshire. (Not
realising this was the Mildenhall in Wiltshire, I looked in Copinger's
Manors of Suffolk (vol.4, p.188). Copinger made the same mistake (!), and
refers to an associated order to the escheator (Close Rolls 1 Edward III, pt
ii 24). Copinger was puzzled by which of the Mildenhall manors this was -
not surprising, as it was a manor in a different Mildenhall, in a different
county!)

Were it not for Maxwell Lyte's statement that Mildenhall came to the Mohuns
on Reynold's marriage with Isabel de Ferrers, those records would read as
implying that it was originally Mohun property that was settled on a younger
son, and when his issue became extinct reverted back to the head of the
family.

At any rate, it does seem clear that the Deincourts, and John de Willoughby,
could not be descendants of Isabel de Ferrers. This means that the proposal
that Iseult, the wife of Hugh Audley, was the daughter of Hugh de Mortimer
and Agatha de Ferrers doesn't account for James Audley's stated relationship
to John de Willoughby. (In fact - if we assume that Iseult had _some_ sort
of relationship with the Mortimers - it accounts for the relationship with
only one of the four men mentioned - Ralph de Ferrers.)

| In article <s13ef385.068@CENTRAL_SVR2>,
| hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us ("Tony Hoskins") wrote:
|
| > Allow me to express my fervent hope that GW's
| > arguable royal-genealogical supremacy will never be challenged by
| > the reality of a Kerry presidency.
|
| I would rather such comments be kept off the list, please. There are
| plenty of on-topic subjects on which we may vociferously disagree.
|
| Nat Taylor

Thanks for the information on the Mohun descent. I must have missed the
post
from Chris and will get it from the archives. I wanted to mention one
other
thing in reference to my post of yesterday. It appears that Margaret
Fitzwilliam who married William Bingham must be a definite daughter of
Isabel
D'Eincourt and Sir William Fitzwilliam. Margaret is not mentioned with
the other
Fitzwilliam children in the fine of 18 Edward II and she is mentioned in
her
mother's will of 1348. I erroneously stated that all the children of Sir
William Fitzwilliam were mentioned in this fine and therefore born before
1324-1325, but missed Margaret Fitzwilliam in my analysis. If anyone
has more
information on Margaret Fitzwilliam and her descendants I would be
greatly
interested.
snip

Dear MichaelAnne,

Do you have a source for Margaret marrying William Bingham? I ask because
I have this Margaret married to Sir Henry Pierrepont. The source is pretty
dodgy though being a 1913 history of the Pierreponts which makes Margaret
the daughter of Sir William Fitzwilliams (sic) and "Maude, dau. of Edmund,
Baron Deincourt" so hardly the most reliable.

If Margaret did marry Sir Henry Pierrepont I think she is ancestral to the
Sir Henry Pierrepont d. 1452 who married Ellen Longford of the Longfords
recently discussed in this forum. Although again, the sources for this are
poor.

Thanks for the information on the Mohun descent. I must have missed the
post
from Chris and will get it from the archives. I wanted to mention one
other
thing in reference to my post of yesterday. It appears that Margaret
Fitzwilliam who married William Bingham must be a definite daughter of
Isabel
D'Eincourt and Sir William Fitzwilliam. Margaret is not mentioned with
the other
Fitzwilliam children in the fine of 18 Edward II and she is mentioned in
her
mother's will of 1348. I erroneously stated that all the children of Sir
William Fitzwilliam were mentioned in this fine and therefore born before
1324-1325, but missed Margaret Fitzwilliam in my analysis. If anyone
has more
information on Margaret Fitzwilliam and her descendants I would be
greatly
interested.

<snip>

Dear MichaelAnne,

Do you have a source for Margaret marrying William Bingham? I ask because
I have this Margaret married to Sir Henry Pierrepont. The source is pretty
dodgy
though being a 1913 history of the Pierreponts which makes Margaret the
daughter of Sir William Fitzwilliams (sic) and "Maude, dau. of Edmund,
Baron Deincourt"
so hardly the most reliable.

If Margaret did marry Sir Henry Pierrepont I think she is ancestral to the
Sir Henry Pierrepont d. 1452 who married Ellen Longford of the Longfords
recently
discussed in this forum. Although again, the sources for this are poor.

Fitzgerald of LackaghThanks for the information on Fitzgerald of Lackagh. I had suspected that in this case Paget might be right and CP wrong. I guess this is a new (albeit minor) correction to CP 4:173 in that the father of Isabella Fitzgerald was a brother, not a son, of Gerald, 8th Earl of Kildare.

Now the challenge for me is to find a copy of the cited source, the Kildare Artchaeological Society Journal. Even the FHL has only a very incomplete run (lacking vol. 1), and all the other (U.S.) libraries that appear to have it are in the Midwest or East Coast. Oh, well....
-----Forwarded Message-----
From: "Clagett, Brice"
Sent: Sep 7, 2004 9:36 AM
To: gen-medieval-l@rootsweb.com
Cc: jhiggins_sf@earthlink.net
Subject: Fitzgerald of Lackagh

Isabella Fitzgerald, Baroness Delvin, was a daughter of Sir Thomas
Fitzgerald (c. 1458-1487), of Lackagh Castle, Co. Kildare (which he
built), second brother of the 8th Earl of Kildare, and his wife, Elizabeth
Preston, daughter of Robert Preston, 4th Lord and 1st Viscount Gormanston,
and his wife, Jane Molyneux.

Sir Thomas was briefly Lord Chancellor of Ireland in 1483, was Lambert
Simnel's earliest and chief supporter in Dublin, and was killed as one
of the commanders at the Battle of Stoke, June 14, 1487.

The best source for his family is "The Fitzgeralds of Lackagh," by
Lord Walter Fitzgerald, in volume 1 of the Kildare Archaeological Journal.

I think there's may be a problem between your ISP (email reader)
and the font displaying the table Stewart shows. AOL does the same
(the display in the newsgroup on Google, or through Rootsweb, clears
up the problem). If you copy the message, and convert it (either in
email or a program such as Word or WordPerfect) to "New Courier"
[10-space], you'll get the chart as Stewart intended. Baldwin Balzo
then comes across as being on the illegitimate end of the dotted
line....

On another matter brought up in your post, I thought some time
ago re: the Rosala/Susanna issue there was some explanation, other
than two distinct names being assigned to this lady during her
lifetime. You noted in your response to Stewart,

'...Rozala, the widow of Count Arnulf II of Flanders and later
(as I think) wife of King Robert II, is problematically named
"Susanna regina" (Queen Susanna).'

I believe the explanation is a geographic one. The full text
from the charter of 988 might validate or disprove this idea (likely
it does neither), but I would suggest that Rozala's Piedmontese
origin gave rise to her being referred to as being from Susa, i.e.
'the Susan queen' [perhaps better in Latin as "regina Susana"]. For
what little we likely know of Rozala, she may well have been born in
the town of Susa....

I don't understand what you mean about the table - I viewed this in a
fixed-width font as intended by Stewart, and Balduin Balzo is connected
by a dotted line to the solid line from which his brothers depend, with
a common link to their father. Failing an explanation, I don't take this
to indicate illegitimacy, especially since a different mother is not
even vestigially represented on the table, but rather an uncertain
relationship.

As to "Susanna", this certainly is not an adjectival term meaning she
was born in Susa - there are several sources establishing that this was
an alternative name of Countess Rozala (see below), and the problem I
referred to is with her title as queen on 1 April 988, not with her
given name. The question is vastly more complex than the facts of the
lady's origin: for one thing, she had grown up in Germany, probably at
the imperial court, and not even in Italy much less in Susa. Her birth
is not at all likely to have occurred there.

She was also given the name Susanna by King Henri I in a diploma of
1038, after her death: "regina diuae memoriae Susanna", see _Diplomata
belgica..._, cited in my previous post, p. 197 no. 92.

The puzzle of the celebrated charter dated 1 April 988 is involved more
with politics and diplomacy than with genealogy, and would not be a
topic of interest to many here. Ferdinand Lot considered that the
document must have belonged to 989, just over a year after the death of
Rozala Susanna's first husband in 988, taken to have occurred on 30
March [see _Études sur le règne de Hugues Capet et la fin du Xe siècle_
BEHE 147 (Paris, 1903) p. 4, note 2], although he also followed the
unconvincing suggestion of the RHGF editors that as a king's daughter
she might have used the title 'regina' during her first marriage.
However, this dating does not account for the long introductory text of
the charter, meditating for half of its length on mortality, which was
clearly more suitable in the mourning period soon after Count Arnulf
II's demise than for remembrance soon after the anniversary.

Père Anselme confused this question, stating that Count Arnulf II of
Flanders was buried on 23 March 988 in the chapel of Saint-Laurent at
Mont Blandin abbey in Ghent, and that his tomb was only finished on 30
March of that year, causing some authors to mistake this for the date of
his death; however, a source was not given for this information [see
_Histoire généalogique et chronologique de la Maison royale de
France..._, third edition, 9 vols (Paris, 1726-33) II p. 715]. Guillaume
de Jumièges was cited at the end of the article on Arnulf II, but no
other medieval sources for details about him. Elsewhere in Anselme it is
claimed that Rosala (named Roselle) was a widow on 23 March 989 [op cit
I p. 71].

I think Arnulf II was dead by 23 March 988, and that his widow did not
marry King Robert II until some tme between March and November 989, a
year or so after she was titled "regina" in Flanders as a deliberate
rebuff to Hugo Capet, who was at the time prematurely seeking her hand
in marriage for his young son.

I think there's may be a problem between your ISP (email reader)
and the font displaying the table Stewart shows. AOL does the same
(the display in the newsgroup on Google, or through Rootsweb, clears
up the problem). If you copy the message, and convert it (either in
email or a program such as Word or WordPerfect) to "New Courier"
[10-space], you'll get the chart as Stewart intended. Baldwin Balzo
then comes across as being on the illegitimate end of the dotted
line....

On another matter brought up in your post, I thought some time
ago re: the Rosala/Susanna issue there was some explanation, other
than two distinct names being assigned to this lady during her
lifetime. You noted in your response to Stewart,

'...Rozala, the widow of Count Arnulf II of Flanders and later
(as I think) wife of King Robert II, is problematically named
"Susanna regina" (Queen Susanna).'

I believe the explanation is a geographic one. The full text
from the charter of 988 might validate or disprove this idea (likely
it does neither), but I would suggest that Rozala's Piedmontese
origin gave rise to her being referred to as being from Susa, i.e.
'the Susan queen' [perhaps better in Latin as "regina Susana"]. For
what little we likely know of Rozala, she may well have been born in
the town of Susa....

An earlier problem I noted: Arnulf I of Flanders and Adelolf
had a sister Ealswid (Ealhswyð per contemporaneous English sources),
but also a sister Ermentrude or Irmintrude, the latter the obvious
namesake of her great-grandmother Ermentrude, wife of Charles 'the
Bald', King of Francia (or Francia/rex Francorum, depending). I
wonder where Tanner obtained the name Ermengarth for this table?
I assume this is a typographic error, in place of Ermentrude, unless
perhaps Stewart knows otherwise.....?

I did not notice Tanner's slip when I was copying her table.
Æthelweard uses the spelling "Earmentruth" for this daughter, so at
first I thought this was just another proofreading error. However,
looking at Tanner's table of the counts of Flanders, I see that in
addition to the sons Arnulf and Adalulf, she gives Baldwin II of
Flanders four or five additional children by Elstrude, namely
Elfstrude, Ealswid, Ermengarde (with one of the last two as wife of
Hilduin, count of Tournai, with a question mark either indicating that
the attribution is uncertain, or that which sister is uncertain), a
child "X" (mother of abbot Hildebrand of St. Bertin, known to be a
nephew of Arnulf I - it is not clear whether or not she is allowing
for the possibility that "X" is the same as one of the other
children), and Albert provost (given as a legitimate son). She also
supplies Baldwin II with an illegitimate daughter Ricsinde, wife of
Evrard, advocate of St. Bertin, and mother of Evrard, advocate of St.
Bertin, and Adalf [sic], abbot of St. Bertin. Of the above
individuals, Baldwin II, his wife Elstrude, and his sons Arnulf I and
Adalulf are the only ones who appear in the (very bad) index of the
book. I don't know where she got the daughter Elfstrude, the
son-in-law Hilduin of Tournai, or the illegitimate daughter Ricsinde

Grazie mille [as they say in Susa] for the added discourse and
sources re: Rozala/Susanna. A nominative anomaly this will likely
remain. Given what we don't know precisely re: her birthplace, I
will keep these notes for future reference.

The genealogical table from Tanner does have problems to be
sure; the representation of Baldwin Balzo's illegitimacy (use of
the subject dotted line) is a fairly typical if not precise
representation, esp. given that no mother(s) are assigned to the
indicated offspring of Adelolf (or Adalulf).

An earlier problem I noted: Arnulf I of Flanders and Adelolf
had a sister Ealswid (Ealhswyð per contemporaneous English sources),
but also a sister Ermentrude or Irmintrude, the latter the obvious
namesake of her great-grandmother Ermentrude, wife of Charles 'the
Bald', King of Francia (or Francia/rex Francorum, depending). I
wonder where Tanner obtained the name Ermengarth for this table?
I assume this is a typographic error, in place of Ermentrude, unless
perhaps Stewart knows otherwise.....?

Do you have a source for Margaret marrying William Bingham? I ask because
I have this Margaret married to Sir Henry Pierrepont. The source is pretty
dodgy though being a 1913 history of the Pierreponts which makes Margaret
the daughter of Sir William Fitzwilliams (sic) and "Maude, dau. of Edmund,
Baron Deincourt" so hardly the most reliable.

If Margaret did marry Sir Henry Pierrepont I think she is ancestral to the
Sir Henry Pierrepont d. 1452 who married Ellen Longford of the Longfords
recently discussed in this forum. Although again, the sources for this are
poor.

I am researching the Bowes of Streathlam line and wondered whether anyone
might have access to what the Complete Peerage has on the the names of the
issue
of Maud Fitzhugh and Sir William Bowes who married about 1449 (or any other
sources of the issue of this couple). I believe Maud Fitzhugh was the
daughter
of Lord Fitzhugh but I have no other details on her parentage. And Sir
William Bowes was the son of Joan Greystoke and another Sir William Bowes.

I am only interested in their immediate issue and not their grandchildren,
so I am not asking for too much!

On a related note, are there any good sources of information on the
Deincourt family, especially in the 14th century?

My curiousity was aroused by the Deincourt-Fitwilliam connection, as a
son of Thomas Swynford's married a Beatrice Fitzwilliam who was
descended from William Fitzwilliam and Isabelle D'Eincourt. As Thomas
Swynford's sister, Blanche, is often stated as having married a
Deincourt heir, I wondered if there were other relevant
intermarriages.

Dear Newsgroup,
It`s hardly suprising that Count Arnulf II`s wife
Rosala might be styled Susanna Regina as according to AR 7 line 146 She is
referred to # 19 as the daughter of Willa of Arles # 19 of line 145 by
Berengar II of Ivrea, King of Italy. Berengar II was a son of Adalbert, Margrave of
Ivrea by Princess Gisele of Italy, daughter of King and Emperor Berengar I of
Italy and the Holy Roman Empire by wife Berta of Spoleto. Berengar I was a
son of Eberhard, Margrave of Friuli whose wife was Princess Gisele of the
Empire, a daughter of Emperor Louis I by his 2nd wife Judith of the Welf Family.
Willa of Arles is likewise of Imperial descent, being daughter of Boso, Count
of Arles and Tuscany by Willa (?of Tuscany), granddaughter of Theobald,
Count of Arles by Princess Bertha of Lotharingia, Great granddaughter of Lothair
(II), King of Lotharingia by Waldrada, 2 Great granddaughter of Emperor
Lothair I of the Empire and wife Ermengarde of Tours, Emperor Louis I of the
Empire and 1st wife Ermengarde , Louis I was son of Charlemagne and Hildegarde
sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Dear Newsgroup,
It`s hardly suprising that Count Arnulf II`s wife
Rosala might be styled Susanna Regina as according to AR 7 line 146 She is
referred to # 19 as the daughter of Willa of Arles # 19 of line 145 by
Berengar II of Ivrea, King of Italy. Berengar II was a son of Adalbert, Margrave of
Ivrea by Princess Gisele of Italy, daughter of King and Emperor Berengar I of
Italy and the Holy Roman Empire by wife Berta of Spoleto. Berengar I was a
son of Eberhard, Margrave of Friuli whose wife was Princess Gisele of the
Empire, a daughter of Emperor Louis I by his 2nd wife Judith of the Welf Family.
Willa of Arles is likewise of Imperial descent, being daughter of Boso, Count
of Arles and Tuscany by Willa (?of Tuscany), granddaughter of Theobald,
Count of Arles by Princess Bertha of Lotharingia, Great granddaughter of Lothair
(II), King of Lotharingia by Waldrada, 2 Great granddaughter of Emperor
Lothair I of the Empire and wife Ermengarde of Tours, Emperor Louis I of the
Empire and 1st wife Ermengarde , Louis I was son of Charlemagne and Hildegarde

You've lost me - how are you suggesting that this ancestry helps to
explain the style "Susanna regina" (either the name or title, or both)
adopted by Rozala as the newly widowed countedd of Flanders? Plenty of
other contemporary women as well born as her didn't change their names
and claim a title other than that used by a living or dead husband.

Grazie mille [as they say in Susa] for the added discourse and
sources re: Rozala/Susanna. A nominative anomaly this will likely
remain. Given what we don't know precisely re: her birthplace, I
will keep these notes for future reference.

I think the name Susanna and title regina can be accounted for in
several quite plausible ways, and I indicated at the end of my message
the gist of the explanation that I find most convincing - that this was
taken mainly to bolster the position of Flanders in a diplomatic contest
with Hugo Capet. There is a good deal of circumstantial evidence in
favour of this, but the matter has little or no genealogical import.

The received view of the local politics at the time was set out by Jean
Dunbabin in 'The Reign of Arnulf II, Count of Flanders, and its
Aftermath', _Francia_ 16 (1989) pp. 53-65. I don't agree with her, and
will eventually get round to arguing a different case, but this is
off-topic for SGM.

Dear Peter,
You`re correct of course. So It must have been about the
marriage to and her rapid reputation by King Robert II of France unless She
took up `queenly` pretensions when her nephew Otto William, King of Lombardy
changed his style to that of Count of Burgundy in the late tenth century.
sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

You are both correct and I mistakenly stated Margaret Fitzwilliam, daughter
of Sir William Fitzwilliam and Isabel D'Eincourt, married William Bingham. She
was married to Henry Pierpointe making their descendants the only documented
heirs of Isabel D'Eincourt and Sir William Fitzwilliam.

Margaret Fitzwilliam was the only daughter of Sir William Fitzwilliam not
named in the fine of Edward II cited in Thoroton:

There was a fine levied, 18 Edward II, between William, son of William, Quer.
and Edmund, parson of the church of Plumtre, deforc. of the manor of Plumtre,
with the Appurtenances, and the advowson of the church of the same manor,
whereby it was settled on the said William Fitz-William, and the heirs of his
body; Remainder to John son of the said William and the heirs male of his;
Remainder to Thomas, brother of John in like fort; Remainder to Joan, Sister of
Thomas, and the heirs male of her body; Remainder to Agnes, and to Isabel, her
sisters respectively in the same manner; remainder to the right heirs of the said
William.

Margaret Fitzwilliam is named in Isabel D'Eincourt's will of 1348 as her
daughter along with the other daughters listed above. Margaret Fitzwilliam must
have been born after 1324-1325.

If you have other information on this line I would appreciate seeing the
descent to the Longford family of Derby.

Isabel Fitzwilliam, sister of Margaret Fitzwilliam, married William Bingham.
As I stated earlier Isabel fits the same chronological probability as Joan
Fitzwilliam that she [Isabel] may also be a daughter of Isabel D'Eincourt.

Dear Peter,
You`re correct of course. So It must have been about the
marriage to and her rapid reputation by King Robert II of France unless She
took up `queenly` pretensions when her nephew Otto William, King of Lombardy
changed his style to that of Count of Burgundy in the late tenth century.

Rozala Susanna's nephew Otto William was never king of the Lombards -
from youth he was considered heir to his step-father's dukedom of
Burgundy, he was titled count of Mâcon & Nevers from the mid-990s, and
failed to establish rights to the dukedom in the struggle against his
aunt's (by then) former husband King Robert II.

The problem with "Susanna regina" is that Rozala was called by this name
and title in an original document that is explicitly & outdoubtedly
dated BEFORE she could have been the wife of Robert.

The name change can be very readily and specifically explained by the
political situation, as I read it, and despite the literal rendering as
"queen" the title is probably better translated as "regent" - in that
sense it is one of at least three examples of its use by a lady of
around the same time whose husband (alive or dead) was not a king.

The name change can be very readily and specifically explained by the
political situation, as I read it, and despite the literal rendering as
"queen" the title is probably better translated as "regent" - in that
sense it is one of at least three examples of its use by a lady of
around the same time whose husband (alive or dead) was not a king.

Does this include the problematic "Matilda regina", wife of
Guigues and focus of so much speculation regarding the name Dauphin?

(1) Sir William Fitz William, Lord of Elmley and Sprotborough, and lineal
ancestor of the present Earl Fitz William, to whose pedigree this will makes
numerous and important additions, and affords much authentic information relative
to the rank and wealth of this antient family at its peiod. The testatrix was
one of the family of Deyncourt, and her name was not Maud, but Isabel.--V.
Hunter's South Yorkshire, I. 336, and II. 93.

The date of July 25, 1348 used by Bailidon was the date the will was written
and not the date of death. She also mentions many people not listed in the
summary in the will.

Many thanks (and lots of liniment) for posting the will of Lady Isabel
(D'eincourt) FitzWilliam into this thread.

I think certain individuals require no added identification (e.g. Isabel
herself, her husband the deceased Lord William FitzWilliam of Emley and
Sprotborough). The will does identify John FitzWilliam of Emley (later to
die
in 1349) and Thomas as her sons; her daughter in law, 'Lady Johanna' [aka
Jane
de Reresby); and in order, Margaret, Joan, Isabel and Agnes as her daughters.
Other individuals identified in this will:

I would hypothesize that certain individuals (noted above, *) were
grandchildren, to whom Lady Isabel was a godparent - hence the added gifts in
her will. Certain others may well have been godchildren, without a blood
relationship.

Any other individuals I can identify (again not among the obvious), I
will advise.

The name change can be very readily and specifically explained by the
political situation, as I read it, and despite the literal rendering
as "queen" the title is probably better translated as "regent" - in
that sense it is one of at least three examples of its use by a lady
of around the same time whose husband (alive or dead) was not a king.

Does this include the problematic "Matilda regina", wife of Guigues and
focus of so much speculation regarding the name Dauphin?

No, there is a fair possibility that this Matilda had been married to a
king beforehand so I didn't consider her as an example.

The three I was referring to, who used the title "regina" while not the
wife or widow of a king, were Rozala Susanna herself, Emma of Bohemia
(her contemporary) and Matilda of Flanders (her great-granddaughter)
when she was properly duchess of Normandy, before 1066.

The appropriate title for a female termporarily but not in her own right
at the head of a regnum (as Normandy, Flanders and Bohemia were then
acknowledged to be, although not kingdoms) did not become firmly
established until towards the end of the 11th century.

Later on Rozala might have called herself "Susanna marchionissa" or
"comitissa" - or even helpfully "marchiocomitissa" - but none of these
would have proclaimed her authority in a troubled time & place as
effectively as "regina". This is not so much because she would be
assuming the status of a king's wife, as that she would be associating
her eminence in human affairs directly with the untouchable prestige on
a higher plane of the one "queen" whose title was in daily use
everywhere and who was definitely not married to a king: the Virgin
Mary, hailed as queen of heaven, queen of the angels and queen of the
apostles.

The churchmen who accorded & popularised such titles were wily
politicians as well as shameless flatterers. In this case of "regina"
meaning "regent" the practice didn't stick, perhaps in part because it
caused offense on coming to the attention of actual kings' wives.

The following is a corrected pedigree, showing the descent of the late
Queen Mother from Geoffrey 'Plantagenet' through (primarily) FitzWilliam
of Emley and Sprotborough, Thornhill of Thornhill, and Savile of Thornhill.
Note also the descent of Lady Diana Spencer and William Farrar of Virginia
from Henry Savile of Copley [details/pedigree available upon request].

Special thanks to MichaelAnne Guido for her input, and providing the
correction to the placement of Joan FitzWilliam, wife of Sir Brian de
Thornhill.

'The Antiquities of Warwickshire' by Sir William Dugdale (Vol. II of The
Second Edition, page 981) has 'Edw. Marowe de Elmedon duxit…..filiam Andrei
Flamok mil.' with Edward being one of the sons of the Thomas Marowe who was
aged six in 1499 when his father William Marrow died.

The Marow pedigree shown in the 1619 Visitation of Warwickshire (page 69 of
the Harleian Society Vol XII) says Edward had '2 sonne' with no mention at
all of his missus.

Does anyone know anything about this Edward Marowe's wife or his family? Is
'Andrei Flamok' anything to do with the Sir Andrew Flammock who was Henry
VIII's standard bearer (and a thoroughly coarse and offensive man)?

What source should I search for; the names of the children of Maldred
MacCrinan and Edith? What is her Anglian name? Is there a Maldred Writ
with his descendants listed in it?
Le

Le,

Scots Peerage (vo. 3, pp. 240 - 241) provides the following
information:
Children of Maldred and "Ealdgith or Algitha (daughter of Uchtred,
earl of Northumberland, by his wife, Aelgifu or Elgiva, daughter of
Aethelred II, king of England.":
1. Gospatric, earl of Northumberland and first earl of Dunbar. He was
born about 1040.
2. Maldred, "who is claimed as the ancestor of Robert Fitz Maldred,
lord of Raby in Durham, & through him of the Nevills, Earls of
Westmoreland and Warwick, and other families of that name. He had
apparently, two sons, Robert & Uchtred." Source for this statement was
Priory of Hexham, Surtees Society, i, 95 & note: cf Liber Vitae
Dunelm, 146

"An Ulkil, son of Maldred, appears as a witness to charters by
Gospatric, brother of Dolfin, before 1138. They may have been
cousins." Source: Raine's North Durham, App. No. cxi; Liber de
Calchou, i, 234

The Tower officials know their British History -- this pogue obviously
does NOT.

Vide infra pro risibus.

DSH
-------------------

John Holand [1395/6-1447], later Constable Of The Tower [1420] and 3rd
Duke of Essex [6 Jan 1443/4] certainly WAS at the Siege of Harfleur and
the Battle of Agincourt.

Thomas Beaufort was ALSO at the Siege of Harfleur, took the surrender of
the city on 22 Sep 1415 and commanded the garrison there AFTER the
surrender.

Thomas did NOT fight in the Battle of Agincourt on 25 October 1415. He
was not YET Duke of Essex either. He became the 2nd Duke of Essex [for
life], the first duke of the second creation, on 18 November 1416.

| ...Thanks for that, as it confirms what I had always thought - in
| several places in the Tower, I saw John Holland mentioned as being the
| Duke of Exeter who was at the battle of Agincourt, which is
| incorrect, as it was Tom Beaufort. I doubt if either of them looked
| like Brian Blessed....

The Tower officials know their British History -- this pogue obviously
does NOT.

Oh really Spency? Well, *this* pogue spotted quite a few howling errors on the
information signs, never mind the stories that the Guides and Warders tell. You
should pay a visit yourself... through Traitors Gate I think, being a nautical
buffoon as you are.

I spotted some other goodies too, and will have to go back to double check. The
graffiti left by certain prisoners was most illuminating...
Cheers
Martin

John and William Burley, who were both Members of Parliament are from a
totally different family than that of Richard and John. Richard, John.
etal. are of the family from Herefordshire. John and William are from
Shropshire.

The parentage of John is not certain. The connection with the Grey family
may come through William's second wife, whose next heir in her IPM is a
member of the Grey family.

Information on William and Ellen Grendon can be found in several places
including William Soalt Society pubs., which information I gave to Douglas
several years ago.

I can read the information on page 377 in your book. I think it make a
strong point as of Joan Burley's parentage.

I do not have the possibility of getting access to Roskell for a while. Is
it possible to know what are the main points about the Burley family? or is
it available on line (I can see some items related to William, Roger, John
and Simon Burley but with no details on the on-line Catalogue of the
National Archve of UK)?

There is no need to be confused. If you examine the sources cited in
Plantagenet Ancestry, you should find ample evidence which proves that
Joan (Burley) Littleton is the daughter and co-heiress of Sir William
Burley, by his 1st wife, Ellen Grendon.

I particularly recommend you examine the biography of Sir William
Burley by Roskell, which is cited in the Harcourt account in my book.
Roskell discusses Sir William Burley's life history, including his two
marriages, and provides adequate documentation for him and his family.
Roskell also discusses Burley's alleged connection to the Grey
family, which he questions for lack of evidence. I concur with Mr.
Roskell.

As you have probably read on a previous reply from Mr. Richardson, one of
your source seems to indicate the same parents for Joan, being William and
maybe...Ellen grendon.

Since Mr. Richardson have posted an additional reply last night as of 2
new
sources of information with respect to this William Burley I should say
that
...I do not know what to think anymore or in french we say... rester sur
sa
faim.

Maybe there will be new/different/other evidence about my Joan Burley's
ancestry which can turn out in a near future !!

I would like to think everyone who took the time to answer my queries about
Joan Burley's parents. Most of the information seen so far is aiming at
William Burley and Ellen Grendon being her parents.

I have also seen a document called: ¨Excerpts from the Institute¨ which
seems to be an update by a Mr. Coke (Coke upon Littleton) of the previous
Thomas Littleton' treatise on property laws (Tenures). The document at page
580 stipulate clearly that Thomas Littleton married to ¨Johan one of the
daughters and coheires of William Burley of Broomescroft Castle in the
county of Salop, a gentleman of ancient descent...¨ at page 582 it adds:
¨his wife Johan Lady littleton survived him and left a great inheritance of
her father, and Ellen her mother, daughter & heire of John Grendon Esquire,
and other her Ancestors, to Sir William Littleton her son¨.

Thank you all again for your help and to have taken the time to guide me in
my quest.

John and William Burley, who were both Members of Parliament are from a
totally different family than that of Richard and John. Richard, John.
etal. are of the family from Herefordshire. John and William are from
Shropshire.

The parentage of John is not certain. The connection with the Grey family
may come through William's second wife, whose next heir in her IPM is a
member of the Grey family.

Information on William and Ellen Grendon can be found in several places
including William Soalt Society pubs., which information I gave to Douglas
several years ago.

I can read the information on page 377 in your book. I think it make a
strong point as of Joan Burley's parentage.

I do not have the possibility of getting access to Roskell for a while. Is
it possible to know what are the main points about the Burley family? or is
it available on line (I can see some items related to William, Roger, John
and Simon Burley but with no details on the on-line Catalogue of the
National Archve of UK)?

There is no need to be confused. If you examine the sources cited in
Plantagenet Ancestry, you should find ample evidence which proves that
Joan (Burley) Littleton is the daughter and co-heiress of Sir William
Burley, by his 1st wife, Ellen Grendon.

I particularly recommend you examine the biography of Sir William
Burley by Roskell, which is cited in the Harcourt account in my book.
Roskell discusses Sir William Burley's life history, including his two
marriages, and provides adequate documentation for him and his family.
Roskell also discusses Burley's alleged connection to the Grey
family, which he questions for lack of evidence. I concur with Mr.
Roskell.

As you have probably read on a previous reply from Mr. Richardson, one of
your source seems to indicate the same parents for Joan, being William and
maybe...Ellen grendon.

Since Mr. Richardson have posted an additional reply last night as of 2
new
sources of information with respect to this William Burley I should say
that
...I do not know what to think anymore or in french we say... rester sur
sa
faim.

Maybe there will be new/different/other evidence about my Joan Burley's
ancestry which can turn out in a near future !!

The superb, hard-working, sober, non-drug-addicted, Tower of London
officials know their British History -- whereas this scruffy,
overweight, uneducated, cocaine-sniffing, English pogue obviously does
NOT.

Indeed he is so pig-ignorant he does not even know that at the time of
the Battle of Agincourt [25 October 1415] there WAS NO Duke of Exeter.

Thomas Beaufort was not created Duke of Exeter, for life, until 18
November 1416

Vide infra pro risibus.

How Sweet It Is!

DSH
-------------------

John Holand [1395/6-1447], later Constable Of The Tower [1420] and 3rd
Duke of Exeter [6 Jan 1443/4] certainly WAS at the Siege of Harfleur and
the Battle of Agincourt on 25 October 1415.

Thomas Beaufort was ALSO at the Siege of Harfleur, took the surrender of
the city on 22 Sep 1415 and commanded the garrison there AFTER the
surrender.

Thomas did NOT fight in the Battle of Agincourt on 25 October 1415. He
was not YET Duke of Exeter either. He became the 2nd Duke of Exeter
[for life], the first duke of the second creation, on 18 November 1416.

Today we have a Marquess of Exeter -- but no Duke of Exeter.

Henry Holand [1430-1475], the 4th Duke of Exeter, was the last Duke of
Exeter. He was born in the Tower of London on 27 Jun 1430 and died
mysteriously, drowned, between Calais and Dover.
------------------------------

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]

| ...Thanks for that, as it confirms what I had always thought - in
| several places in the Tower, I saw John Holland mentioned as being the
| Duke of Exeter who was at the battle of Agincourt, which is
| incorrect, as it was Tom Beaufort. I doubt if either of them looked
| like Brian Blessed....

The Tower officials know their British History -- this pogue obviously
does NOT.

Vide infra pro risibus.

DSH
-------------------

John Holand [1395/6-1447], later Constable Of The Tower [1420] and 3rd
Duke of Essex [6 Jan 1443/4] certainly WAS at the Siege of Harfleur and
the Battle of Agincourt.

Ahem... Duke of Essex? Oh well, we all make mistakes, don't worry about it
David.

Whatever, John Holland may well have been at Agincourt, but not as the Duke of
Exeter - the battle of Agincourt was in 1415, I thought you'd have known that
Spency?

I was going to be kind and let you off there David, but as you've been so keen
to gleefully point out my mistakes recently (as if you somehow won an important
'victory'), I changed my mind and thought I'd drop one in your magazine again. I
am not in the giving vein this day...

You really should be more cautious if you want to be so smug!

Sitat:

Thomas Beaufort was ALSO at the Siege of Harfleur, took the surrender of
the city on 22 Sep 1415 and commanded the garrison there AFTER the
surrender.

Thomas did NOT fight in the Battle of Agincourt on 25 October 1415. He
was not YET Duke of Essex either. He became the 2nd Duke of Essex
[for life], the first duke of the second creation, on 18 November 1416.

'Nuff Said.

More than 'nuff I think! Who held the title Duke of Essex at Agincourt I wonder?
You may be getting confused with Guy Duke 'of Essex' who fought there perhaps?
You really should be more precise David... mind you, geneaology is a minefield,
I do realise that. Forgivebale, despite being hilarious.

Thomas Beaufort, Henry V's uncle, was of course Duke of Exeter at Agincourt, as
any fule kno.... it says so on te internet!

| ...Thanks for that, as it confirms what I had always thought - in
| several places in the Tower, I saw John Holland mentioned as being the
| Duke of Exeter who was at the battle of Agincourt, which is
| incorrect, as it was Tom Beaufort. I doubt if either of them looked
| like Brian Blessed....

The superb, hard-working, sober, non-drug-addicted, Tower of London
officials know their British History -- whereas this scruffy, fat,
uneducated -- self-admitted cocaine-sniffing and marijuana-smoking --
English rampant pogue obviously does NOT. His abuse of illegal drugs
has obviously fried and pickled his brain.

Indeed he is so pig-ignorant he does not even know that at the time of
the Battle of Agincourt [25 October 1415] there WAS NO Duke of Exeter.

Thomas Beaufort was not created Duke of Exeter, for life, until 18
November 1416

Vide infra pro risibus.

How Sweet It Is!

DSH
-------------------

John Holand [1395/6-1447], later Constable Of The Tower [1420] and 3rd
Duke of Exeter [6 Jan 1443/4] certainly WAS at the Siege of Harfleur and
the Battle of Agincourt on 25 October 1415.

Thomas Beaufort, the [half] uncle of Henry V, was ALSO at the Siege of
Harfleur, took the surrender of the city on 22 Sep 1415 and commanded
the garrison there AFTER the surrender.

Thomas did NOT fight in the Battle of Agincourt on 25 October 1415. He
was not YET Duke of Exeter either. He became the 2nd Duke of Exeter
[for life], the first duke of the second creation, on 18 November 1416.

Today we have a Marquess of Exeter -- but no Duke of Exeter.

Henry Holand [1430-1475], the 4th Duke of Exeter, was the last Duke of
Exeter. He was born in the Tower of London on 27 Jun 1430 and died
mysteriously, drowned, between Calais and Dover.
------------------------------

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]

| ...Thanks for that, as it confirms what I had always thought - in
| several places in the Tower, I saw John Holland mentioned as being the
| Duke of Exeter who was at the battle of Agincourt, which is
| incorrect, as it was Tom Beaufort. I doubt if either of them looked
| like Brian Blessed....

The superb, hard-working, sober, non-drug-addicted, Tower of London
officials know their British History -- whereas this scruffy,
overweight, uneducated, cocaine-sniffing, English pogue obviously does
NOT.

Who can he be talking about - not me surely?

True, I am English, and scruffy on occasion admittedly (we prefer to call it
'casual' in the UK), but you are either thinking of someone else, or have been
badly misinformed! Scruffy socialists can surely not afford cocaine, and are
lean, mean and hungry.

Anyway, after seeing you in that ill fitting, ridiculous 'see-thru' uniform (not
a pretty sight I have to say), I think you have no right whatsoever to comment
on *anyone's* clothing David... what you look like today, I dread to think!

Sitat:

Indeed he is so pig-ignorant he does not even know that at the time of
the Battle of Agincourt [25 October 1415] there WAS NO Duke of Exeter.

I'm glad to see you found the date of the battle of Agincourt at last Spency -
was geting worried about you there!
Of course there was - don't you know your Shakespeare? It was Brian Blessed -
ask him.

Tut tut... and you have the nerve to call me a pogue!

Sitat:

How Sweet It Is!

It surely is David - but back to business, we were talking about the Duke of
Essex.

What creation was that - my records seem incomplete, I can't seem to find any
mention of His Grace anywhere? Pray do tell, this is valuable new information!
Cheers
Martin

Thomas Marowe de Hoxton, formerly 'of Rudfyn' or Rudfeld, born abt. 1516,
married Alice Yonge, daughter and heir of Richard Yonge ob. 1545 (1619
Visitation of Warwickshire and Dugdale's Antiquities). The visitation
pedigree of the Marowes has Richard as the son of Robert and Margery Yonge
and the grandson of Henrie Yonge. Dugdale has (what may have been a
mistake): 'Alicia fola filia and haeres Ric. Harreyong nupta 29.H.8.'

The A2A resource has some property dealings between Thomas Marowe and one
John Harry Yonge of Shoreditch, gentleman (the Marowes also came from
London) but of course that John may just have been a business connection
for all I know.

Can anyone tell me anything at all about this Yonge family?

The visitation has Marow adding a quartering of Young to their arms (which
also quartered Rich) as: 'Argent, a chevron chequy or and sable between
three griffins' heads erased gules, on a chief vert a ducal crown argent
between two bezants'.

I bought the 8th edition of Ancestral Roots, published recently. I would
not recommend it to others. There is very little in it that is new, and
the
opportunity to clean up earlier editions has largely been lost; there are
innumerable typos, and it perpetuates many errors in prior editions that
have long been demolished, such as the Corbet-Malory marriage. Like prior
editions, this one is particularly egregious on the Haringtons. As one
example, it makes Isabel Harington, wife of Sir John Stanley, a daughter
of the 2d Lord Harington. The 7th edition said she was daughter of the 3d
Lord Harington. Both are equally clueless. I thought every one knew by
now that Isabel was daughter of Sir Nicholas Harington of Farleton.

The editors of the 8th edition would have been spared many of their
mistakes if they had had the good sense to participate in this forum, as
Douglas
Richardson did.

There is at least one bogus line that appears in the 8th edition for the
first time in this series. This is the supposed descent of the Vernons of
Haddon from Sir Richard de Vernon and "Juliana de Vescy," daughter of
William de Vescy and Agnes, daughter of William de Ferrers, 5th Earl of
Derby.

The only citation is to Burke's Peerage (1953) p. 2134. This supposed
descent has been commented on once or twice in this forum with
considerable skepticism. In fact it is easy to show that the Vernons of
Haddon, and their innumerable descendants, did not spring from such a
marriage. In 1315 Gilbert de Aton was found to be the heir general of
William de Vescy, 1st Lord Vescy (d. 1297), by descent from Warin de
Vescy, uncle of the William de Vescy who married Agnes de Ferrers. CP
12:2:285 n.(b).

Thus the descendants of William who married Ferrers, and indeed of his
father, Eustace de Vescy, were extinct by 1315.

________________________________________________________________
Get your name as your email address.
Includes spam protection, 1GB storage, no ads and more
Only $1.99/ month - visit http://www.mysite.com/name today!

The superb, hard-working, sober, non-drug-addicted, Tower of London
officials know their British History -- whereas this scruffy, fat,
uneducated -- self-admitted cocaine-sniffing and marijuana-smoking --
English rampant pogue obviously does NOT. His abuse of illegal drugs
has obviously fried and pickled his brain.

Indeed he is so pig-ignorant he does not even know that at the time of
the Battle of Agincourt [25 October 1415] there WAS NO Duke of Exeter.

Thomas Beaufort was not created Duke of Exeter, for life, until 18
November 1416

But you said he was the Duke of Essex a couple of posts ago? Was this John
Holland, or Thomas Beaufort?

When was this title bestowed, and upon whom? I don't remember Henry V (Brannaugh
or Olivier) even mentioning him at Agincourt?

Do try not to confuse the issue David - you do tend to do this you know, not
very helpful. My abuse of drugs (as you accuse) seems not to have affected my
clarity of thought nearly as badly as your consumption of bulk bourbon. It may
help if you line your syrups* with tin foil too, as something seems to be
affecting your memory rather badly.
Cheers
Martin
*(for those overseas or not from London, 'syrup of figs = wigs')

Is his name properly spelled [insofar as we can determine] MAREEN, as
Gordo has it, or MAUREEN, as you have it here and what do we know about
him? Many of us have Brasseur connections.

That's certainly all on topic -- for the quibblers and wankers who have
palpitations about such trivia.

DSH

<Therav3@aol.com> wrote in message news:7f.4c64c548.2e82d9c0@aol.com...

| Wednesday, 22 September, 2004
|
|
| Dear John (SG), Jeff, Spencer, et al.,
|
| Maureen Duvall's daughter Susannah (by his 2nd wife Susannah
| Brasseur/Brashears), wife of Robert Tyler of Queen Anne Parish,
| Prince George's Co., Maryland, is the ancestress of a large horde,
| including the memorable (Harry S. Truman - at least one of the lines
| JSG noted; the Rev. John Thomas Wheat; Major Chatham Roberdeau
| Wheat, CSA; the Rev. (and Congressman) Francis Emanuel Shober of New
| York; and the Wheat family of "Wheat First Securities" fame) as well
| as the not-so (myself).
|
| Maureen Duvall the emigrant may not be the holder of the title
| "Kilroy of Maryland colonial genealogy", but he was/is certainly a
| contender...
|
| Cheers,
|
| John

| Several of us on this list descend from Benois Brasseur, the father of
| Sussannah Brasseur Duvall. If Benois is the Bennett Brasseur claimed
by
| Robert Brasseur of Lower Norfolk Co., and "Nancemond" Co. VA, then
there
| may be a connection to Vice President Dick Cheney through the family
of Robert.
|
| Benois or Benjamin Brasseur was appointed a Justice of the Peace for
| Calvert Co, MD but soon died. He did not leave a will, but his wife,
Mary
| (Richford, Rickford, Richeford?) did write onr before her marriage to
| Thomas Starling or Sterling, (WILL of MARY BRASSEUR, Maryland Hall of
| Records, L. 1, ff. 187-189) wherein she names a Robert Brasseur as her
| Brother-in-law and joint overseer of her will with Thomas Sterling.
|
| The home of Benois and Mary Brasseur, called "Upper Bennett" at The
Cliffs,
| was in existence as late as 1957. Does anyone know if it still exists
or
| was it destroyed when the nuclear plant was built?
|
| Regards,
|
| Steven C. Perkins
|
|
| At 09:36 AM 9/22/2004 -0400, you wrote:
| >Wednesday, 22 September, 2004
| >
| >
| >Dear John (SG), Jeff, Spencer, et al.,
| >
| > Maureen Duvall's daughter Susannah (by his 2nd wife Susannah
| > Brasseur/Brashears), wife of Robert Tyler of Queen Anne Parish,
| > Prince George's Co., Maryland, is the ancestress of a large horde,
| > including the memorable (Harry S. Truman - at least one of the
lines
| > JSG noted; the Rev. John Thomas Wheat; Major Chatham Roberdeau
| > Wheat, CSA; the Rev. (and Congressman) Francis Emanuel Shober of
New
| > York; and the Wheat family of "Wheat First Securities" fame) as
well
| > as the not-so (myself).
| >
| > Maureen Duvall the emigrant may not be the holder of the title
| > "Kilroy of Maryland colonial genealogy", but he was/is certainly a
| > contender...
| >
| > Cheers,
| >
| > John

Maureen Duvall's daughter Susannah (by his 2nd wife Susannah
Brasseur/Brashears), wife of Robert Tyler of Queen Anne Parish,
Prince George's Co., Maryland, is the ancestress of a large horde,
including the memorable (Harry S. Truman - at least one of the lines
JSG noted; the Rev. John Thomas Wheat; Major Chatham Roberdeau
Wheat, CSA; the Rev. (and Congressman) Francis Emanuel Shober of New
York; and the Wheat family of "Wheat First Securities" fame) as well
as the not-so (myself).

Maureen Duvall the emigrant may not be the holder of the title
"Kilroy of Maryland colonial genealogy", but he was/is certainly a
contender...

Several of us on this list descend from Benois Brasseur, the father of
Sussannah Brasseur Duvall. If Benois is the Bennett Brasseur claimed by
Robert Brasseur of Lower Norfolk Co., and "Nancimond" Co. VA, then there
may be a connection to Vice President Dick Cheney through the family of Robert.

Benois or Benjamin Brasseur was appointed a Justice of the Peace for
Calvert Co, MD but soon died. He did not leave a will, but his wife, Mary
(Richford, Rickford, Richeford?) did write onr before her marriage to
Thomas Starling or Sterling, (WILL of MARY BRASSEUR, Maryland Hall of
Records, L. 1, ff. 187-189) wherein she names a Robert Brasseur as her
Brother-in-law and joint overseer of her will with Thomas Sterling.

The home of Benois and Mary Brasseur, called "Upper Bennett" at The Cliffs,
was in existence as late as 1957. Does anyone know if it still exists or
was it destroyed when the nuclear plant was built?

Regards,

Steven C. Perkins

At 09:36 AM 9/22/2004 -0400, you wrote:

Sitat:

Wednesday, 22 September, 2004

Dear John (SG), Jeff, Spencer, et al.,

Maureen Duvall's daughter Susannah (by his 2nd wife Susannah
Brasseur/Brashears), wife of Robert Tyler of Queen Anne Parish,
Prince George's Co., Maryland, is the ancestress of a large horde,
including the memorable (Harry S. Truman - at least one of the lines
JSG noted; the Rev. John Thomas Wheat; Major Chatham Roberdeau
Wheat, CSA; the Rev. (and Congressman) Francis Emanuel Shober of New
York; and the Wheat family of "Wheat First Securities" fame) as well
as the not-so (myself).

Maureen Duvall the emigrant may not be the holder of the title
"Kilroy of Maryland colonial genealogy", but he was/is certainly a
contender...

Mareen is the 'correct' spelling, but then proper spelling and 17th
century Maryland had little to do with one another. Following are my
basic notes re: Mareen Duvall [note the different spelling in the MD
record of his patent of 1664].

Liber 2, Folio 327 :
' Duvall, Mareen, Anne Arundel County, 2nd Aug, 1694; 13th Aug., 1694.
To wife Mary, executrix, part of 600 acres, "Middle Plantation" during
life, and she is not to be molested by any of testator's children.
To son Lewis and hrs., 300 acres, part of "Middle Plantation", on
which eldest son Mareen now lives; also to inherit wife Mary's portion
at her decease.
To daughter Elizabeth and hrs., 375 acres, "Bowdell's Choice" in
Calvert County.
To son Benjamin and hrs., 200 acres, part of 400 acres, "Howerton's
Range" in Calvert County.
To daughter Catherine and hrs., residue of "Hoerton's Range."
To son Mareen, the younger, son of late wife Susannah, and hrs., 300
acres, "The Plains" in Calvert County.
To daughter Mary and hrs., 320 acres, "Marley's Grove," and 300
acres, "Marley's Lot," Anne Arundel County.
To youngest daughter Johanna, 311 acres, "Larkin's Choice," and 200
acres, "Duvall's Range."
To son John, 5 shillings.
To daughter Elizabeth, wife of John Roberts, and to son Samuel,
personalty.
Sons John and Lewis and son-in-law Robert Tyler to assist wife in
executorship. Sons to be of age at 18 years and daughters at 16 years.

Perhaps JSG knows better re: Mareen Duvall's affiliation.
He may have been a Huguenot, although obviously emigrating well
before the revocation of the Edict of Nantes.....

Re: the hot Brasseur topic, following is what I have in my
notes re: Benois/Benjamin Brasseur, father in law of Mareen
Duvall. As I have it, his issue included his daughter Susannah
(Brasseur) Duvall, and his elder son Robert Brasseur of
Elizabeth Cittie [later Nansemond County], Virginia. Main
reference: Early Families of Southern Maryland, by Elise J.
Jourdan (5 volumes. Westminster, MD: Family Line Publications)

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:s804d.240$qH4.6743@eagle.america.net...
MORE Twaddle, Balderdash and Codswallop From The Usual Quarters....

Gordo has found a friend.

The superb, hard-working, sober, non-drug-addicted, Tower of London
officials know their British History -- whereas this scruffy, fat,
uneducated -- self-admitted cocaine-sniffing and marijuana-smoking --
English rampant pogue obviously does NOT. His abuse of illegal drugs
has obviously fried and pickled his brain.

Just to interject here.

When I was in London in 1987 and 1989 I went into the Tower a number
of times as there is quite a lot to take in. The Tower of London has a
number of guides who are very vocal and have their own stories about
the Tower..The only decent look around the Tower that I got was with
an old fellow ex matelot..
In fact there were two or three different tales about different parts
of the Tower.
The baptisimal font for one...

Benois or Benoit Brassieur/Brassier came to Maryland from Virginia as is
shown from his Certificate of Denization from Cecil Lord Baltimore in 1662/3
(Maryland Hall of Records, Proceedings of the Provincial Council, L. HH, ff.
157-158). Unfortunately, Benois died shortly afterwards (1663) and he did not
leave a will. His wife did make a will prior to her marriage to Thomas Starling
and it is printed below. In Maryland, Benois Brasseur became Benjamin Brashears
and he was appointed a Justice of the Peace for Calvert Co.

Benois was probably related to the Brasseur family of Lower Norfolk and
Nansemond countiess, Virginia. A Bennet Brasseur is named as one of the persons
transported by Robert Brasseur in a patent of 1200 acres in "Nanzemond Co."
dated 12 April 1653 (Virginia Patent Book 3, p. 33 in Nugent, Cavaliers and
Pioneers, vol. 1, p. 244). At least 600 acres of this land escheated to the
Crown "by reason Rob. Braseur was an alien". At the time of the escheat, 19
November 1670, the 600 acres was in the possession of Rich. Staples, husband of
one of the daughters of Robert Brasseur to whom he willed the land
("Inquisitions on Escheated Lands", The Virginia Genealogist, vol. 20, p. 111).
The escheat of an additional 300 acres of the lands of Robert Brasseur is also
recorded ("Inquisitions on Escheated Lands", The Virginia Genealogist, vol. 20,
pp. 23-24). This land was granted, 7 June 1670, to "Mr. John Brasseur his
sonn".

Benois had a patent in Virginia for "300 acres at the head of Indian
Creek, a branch of the western branch of the Nansemond River", Virginia Patent
Book 3, p. 89, dated 12 April 1653, (Nugent, Cavaliers and Pioneers, vol. 1, p.
257). One of the persons claimed as a headright was Mary RICHFORD. This patent
was renewed 26 March 1656 (Virginia Patent Book 4, p. 26 (40) in Nugent,
Cavaliers and Pioneers, vol. 1, p. 329). A Benors Brasheire was granted 100
acres in "Nancimond Co.", by an inquisition of 23 February 1662. This land was
granted to Charles Drury 23 September 1663 (Virginia Patent Book 5, p. 450
(543) in Nugent, Cavaliers and Pioneers, vol. 1, pp. 539-540).

The home of Benois Brasseuir, "Upper Bennett", was in existence in 1957
and was located at "The Cliffs" in Calvert Co., Maryland.

The surname of Mary Brasseur is believed to be Richford. This is
based solely on the importation of a Mary Richford by Benois Brasseur as
mentioned above.

After the death of Benois, Mary secured a deed to the land and the
house the family had from Richard Bennett (Maryland Archives, vol. 41, p.
178). She also made a will at this time. The will was probated after she
became the wife of Thomas Starling.

WILL of MARY BRASSEUR, Maryland Hall of Records, L. 1, ff. 187-189. In the
name of God, Amen. I, Mary Brasseur, widow of the Cliffs, in the Province
of Maryland, being of sound & perfect mind and memory, but knowing the
uncertainty of this life, do make and ordaine this my last will and
testament in manner and form following: Imprimis, for the natural love and
affection I bear to my children and for their future maintenance and
livelyhood, I give and bequeath to each of them as followeth; that is to
say, two hundred acres of woodland to Robert, two hundred acres of like
land to Benjamin, and also two hundred acres of the like to John Brassures,
my sons, the said lland to come to them and either of them, their heires &
assignes for ever, when they shall accomplish the age of one and twenty
yeares; and in case any or either of them shall depart this life before he
or they shall attaine to his or their respective ages of one and twenty
years, the land of him or them so dyeing shall remaine and be to the
surviving brother or brothers; and my will and desire is that no timber
trees shall be fallen for any use whatsoever on the said land untill the
said children shall come of age; but if they shall all depart this life
before they shall attaine to their respective ages, then the said land to
remaine and be to such daughter and daughters of me, the said Mary
Brasshear, as shall be then living, the said six hundred acres of land
being part of the land on which I now live, situate at the Cliffs, and
bought by mee of Mr. Richard Bennett, merchant. Ittem. I do also give and
bequeath unto each of my sons above-named one feather bed, with the rug,
blankets, curtains, and such like appurtenances to
the same belonging. Ittem. I give to each of my sons, when they shall
attain to their respective ages, one servant a peece. Ittem. I give to my
son Robert two cowes, called and known by the names of Cherry and Button.
Ittem. To Benjamin one cow, called the Wild Heifer, and another, called
Goate; to my son John one heifer called Dainty, and one heifer named Starr,
the said cowes and heifers, with their female increase, to be delivered to
them at such time and when they shall attaine their severall and respective
ages aforementioned; and if any or either of them shall depart this life
before they shall come of age, the said cattell, with their female
increase, to be equally divided between the surviving brothers; and my will
and desire is that the two hundred acres of land that I have bequeathed to
my son Robert shall be the two hundred acres which is next adjoining unto
my brother in law Robt. Brasseur; and that Benjamin, my son, shall have his
two hundred on this side of my son Robert; and that my son John shall have
his next unto Benjamin's. Ittem. I give and bequeath to my daughter Mary
two heifers, called and known by the names of Pascoll and Phillpaill, with
their female encrease, to be delivered to the said Mary when she shall
accomplish the age of sixteene yeares or day of marriage, which shall first
happen. Also, I give and bequeath to my daughter Ann two heifers, called
and known by the names of Ioneeasy and Sarah, with their female encrease,
to be delivered to her when she shall accomplish the age of sixteen years
or day of marriage, which shall first happen; also I give and bequeath to
my daughter Susannah two heifers, called and known by the names of Fancy
and Pye, with their female encrease, to be delivered unto her when she
shall accomplish the age of sixteene years or day of marriage, which shall
first happen; also I give and bequeath to my daughter Martha three heifers,
called and known by the names of Brouning, Primrose & Roase, with their
female encrease, to be delivered unto her at such time and when she shall
accomplish the age of sixteen years or day of marriage, which shall first
happen; also I give and bequeath to my daughter Elizabeth three heifers,
called and known by the names of Christmas, Cole and Nutt, with their
female encrease, to be delivered unto her at such time and when she shall
accomplish the age of sixteen years or day of marriage, which shall first
happen; and in case either of my said daughters shall depart this life
before they shall accomplish their severall and respective ages, then the
cattle, with their encrease, of her or them so dyeing to remaine and be and
equally to be divided amongst the surviving daughters. Ittem. I give my
five daughters each of them a servant to be delivered them at the age of
sixteene yeares or day of marriage, which shall first happen. As for that
part of my estate that I shall have at my decease and not herein and hereby
already given and bequeathed, I give and bequeath to my daughters, equally
to be divided between them, share and share alike, to be delivered them at
such time and when they shall accomplish their severall ages or days of
marriage, which shall first happen. And my will and desire is that if I
depart this life before my children come of age, the overseers of this, my
will, take care that my children shall peaceably and quietly enjoy the
plantacon I now live on, with all appurtenances whatsoever, without the
lett or molestation of any person or persons whatsoever untill they shall
accomplish their severall and respective ages or day of marriage, which
shall first happen. And I nominate and constitute my loveing friends,
Thomas Sterling, and Robert Brasseur, my brother-in-law, to be overseers of
this, my last will and testament, desireing them in all things to see it
carefully performed; and I publish and pronounce it to be the absolute
lastwill and testament of mee, Mary Brasseur. IN WITNESS whereof, I have
hereunto sett my hand and seale, May the five and twenty, one thousand six
hundred sixty and three. Signed and sealed as the last will and testament
of the said Mary Brasseur in the presence of: Theophilus Lewis, James
Pugslep. Mary MB Brasseur